 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sutton v. Golden Gate Bridge12/3/1998
Ordered published 12/29/98 (order attached)
In this personal injury action, David Sutton (appellant) appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of respondent Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District (District). Appellant contends that there are triable issues of fact as to whether the District established the defense of design immunity and whether it was negligent independent of any design defect. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At approximately 1 p.m. on November 2, 1994, appellant was involved in an automobile accident on the Golden Gate Bridge. At the time of the accident, there were three lanes operating in each the northbound and southbound directions. Appellant was driving in the northbound number 1 lane (the far left or "fast" lane) when he was hit by a car driven by Sandra Roberts. Roberts was changing lanes from the center lane to the number 1 lane when her car sideswiped appellant's truck. Appellant's truck skidded to the left, crossed the median and entered the southbound number one lane where it was involved in a head-on collision with a pickup truck driven by Clem Gutierrez. Although the posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour, Roberts admitted that she was traveling between 50 and 60 miles per hour. Appellant averred that he was traveling at a speed of 50 miles per hour but Roberts believed that he was traveling at a speed faster than her own, and the District's accident reconstruction expert declared that appellant was traveling at approximately 70 miles per hour.
Gutierrez was pronounced dead at the scene. Appellant sustained serious injuries including the loss of his right leg below the knee, loss of the fingers on his right hand and extensive third and second degree burns on his body.
Appellant filed a personal injury action against the District. He alleged that the lack of a median barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge constituted a dangerous condition of public property, and that the bridge, as maintained by the District, was a nuisance. The District moved for summary judgment, contending that it was entitled to design immunity under Government Code section 830.6. The trial court granted the motion, finding that design immunity provided the District a complete defense on the issue of whether there was a duty to install a median barrier and that there were no triable issues of fact on the other allegations of the complaint.
DISCUSSION
1. Collateral Estoppel
Preliminarily, we address the District's argument that appellant is collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of the District's liability for the lack of a median barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge. It contends that that issue was litigated and resolved between the parties in the action filed by Gutierrez -- Gutierrez et al. v. Sutton et al., Marin County Superior Court No. 165732. We conclude that collateral estoppel does not apply in this action.
Like appellant, Gutierrez also filed an action against the District raising the question of the District's liability for the accident on the basis of its failure to erect a median barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge. The District moved for summary judgment in that action, arguing as it does here, that it was entitled to design immunity under Government Code section 830.6 for any automobile accidents that occurred on the Golden Gate Bridge due to the lack of a median barrier. Appellant, who was sued for negligence in that action, was represented by counsel for his insurer. His insurance counsel did not file any formal opposition to the motion. Appellant's counsel in the present action, however, filed a declaration opposing the motion and alerting the court
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|