Articles Posted in Transportation Law

by
An officer responding to a midnight single-vehicle collision saw an SUV on the edge of the road moving forward and backward; one tire was missing and the wheel’s rim and brake system were extensively damaged. Munro got out of the driver’s seat. The officer noticed he was “extremely unsteady,” that his breath smelled like alcohol, his eyes were red, and his speech was slurred. The officer asked Munro to lean against the patrol car. Munro refused, denied being the driver, and denied consuming alcohol. The officer attempted to conduct a field sobriety test, asking Munro to follow his pen with his eyes. Munro closed his eyes and stated that he would not take a chemical test. The officer arrested Munro on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before the Department of Motor Vehicles may suspend a driver’s license for refusal to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol content of his blood, the driver “shall be told [by the arresting officer] that ... failure to submit ... will result in ... the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle" for one year. (Veh. Code 23612(a)(1)(D). The officer intended to read Munro the Admonition but Munro began kicking and trying to slip out of his handcuffs. Three officers placed Munro into a restraint The officer never read the Admonition. The court of appeal reversed Munro's suspension. An officer is not relieved of the duty to at least attempt to provide the Admonition when the suspected drunk driver engages in disruptive behavior. View "Munro v. Department of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against Uber for providing unlicensed transportation services that appropriated passengers and income from licensed taxicab drivers. Plaintiffs alleged Uber failed to comply with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) licensing requirements for charter-party carriers. Uber argued the court lacked jurisdiction under Public Utilities Code section 1759 due to ongoing rulemaking by the CPUC. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint, stating that the CPUC has authority to adopt regulatory policies concerning transportation companies and has exercised that authority. A finding of liability against Uber in this action would hinder or interfere with the CPUC’s exercise of its regulatory authority by requiring the trial court to make factual findings regarding whether Uber falls within the charter-party carrier definition and, if so, which regulations would apply to its operations. View "Goncharov v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against Uber for providing unlicensed transportation services that appropriated passengers and income from licensed taxicab drivers. Plaintiffs alleged Uber failed to comply with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) licensing requirements for charter-party carriers. Uber argued the court lacked jurisdiction under Public Utilities Code section 1759 due to ongoing rulemaking by the CPUC. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint, stating that the CPUC has authority to adopt regulatory policies concerning transportation companies and has exercised that authority. A finding of liability against Uber in this action would hinder or interfere with the CPUC’s exercise of its regulatory authority by requiring the trial court to make factual findings regarding whether Uber falls within the charter-party carrier definition and, if so, which regulations would apply to its operations. View "Goncharov v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit against the City after her grandson died during a police pursuit. Plaintiff claimed that an officer acted negligently and committed battery by performing a Pursuit Intervention Technique (PIT) that caused the vehicle in which her grandson was a passenger in, to spin into a street light pole. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the City was immune from liability for the officer's conduct under Vehicle Code section 17004.7. Section 17004.7 provided immunity to a public agency employing peace officers when the agency adopts and promulgates a policy on vehicular pursuits in compliance with the requirements of the statute. View "Ramirez v. City of Gardena" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition for a writ of mandate to overturn a hearing officer’s decision to suspend plaintiff's license after he violated Vehicle Code section 13353.2 by driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more. In this case, the trial court's ruling was based on its rejection of the unrebutted testimony of plaintiff's expert, who opined that the blood testing procedure used to measure plaintiff's BAC was scientifically invalid. In Najera v. Shiomoto, which involved the same expert, the court held that the expert's testimony, that single-column gas chromatography was incapable of valid measurement of BAC, rebutted the presumption that the laboratory was using methodology “capable of the analysis of ethyl alcohol with a specificity which is adequate and appropriate for traffic law enforcement.” Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Freitas v. Shiomoto" on Justia Law

Posted in: Transportation Law

by
The City and Xerox appealed the trial court's grant of petitioner's petition for writ of mandate. At issue is whether the City, as the “issuing agency” for notice of parking violations in the City, Veh. Code, 40202, must conduct the “initial review” of challenged citations, section 40215, subd. (a), or whether it may delegate that duty to Xerox, its "processing agency," section 40200.6, subd. (a), with which it contracts "for the processing of notices of parking violations," section 40200.5, subd. (a). The court held that, based on the language of section 40215, subdivision (a) and relevant legislative history, the City is required to conduct the initial review, and cannot contract with Xerox to perform that duty. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s issuance of a writ of mandate, as well as the trial court's award of approximately $722,000 in attorney fees pursuant to the California private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. View "Weiss v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

by
California’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (OPPA), under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et. seq.), addresses the obligations of an operator of a commercial Web site or online service regarding the posting of a privacy policy on the Internet. The state sought damages and injunctive relief under OPPA, alleging that Delta’s Fly Delta mobile application violated the privacy policy requirements. The trial court dismissed, finding the suit expressly preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 U.S.C. 41713 (b)(1)). The court of appeal affirmed. To compel Delta to comply with the OPPA would effectively interfere with the airline’s “selection and design” of its mobile application, a marketing mechanism “appropriate to the furnishing of air transportation service,” for which state enforcement has been held to be expressly preempted. View "Harris v. Delta Air Lines" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff filed a putative class action suit against MCRA, alleging that the stop sign violation for which MRCA cited him occurred on a “highway” as defined by Vehicle Code section 360, that Vehicle Code section 21 makes the provision of the Vehicle Code uniformly applicable to all “highways” located in California, that Vehicle Code section 21455.5 governs automated traffic enforcement systems, and that MRCA failed to comply with the requirements of Vehicle Code section 21455.5 in establishing its automated video camera traffic enforcement system. At issue on appeal is whether MCRA is unlawfully imposing administrative penalties - in substantive effect fines for moving traffic violations - on motor vehicle owners. The court concluded that the trial court correctly ruled that it is “immaterial” whether or not the roadway in MRCA-controlled parkland where plaintiff was administratively cited is a “highway” as defined in Vehicle Code section 360. Highway or not in plaintiff's case, the court found that the MRCA Ordinance does not conflict with Vehicle Code section 21’s general prohibition against local vehicle ordinances in favor of uniform state vehicle laws. Because the court held that MRCA’s automated video camera traffic enforcement system is not subject to the Vehicle Code’s provisions governing automated traffic enforcement systems, the trial court correctly sustained MRCA’s demurrer. View "Everett v. Mountains Recreation & Conservancy Auth." on Justia Law

by
After plaintiff was injured while working on the railroad, he filed suit against BNSF under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51 et seq., alleging that he was injured because of BNSF's negligence. A jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him over $3 million in damages. BNSF appealed. The court rejected BNSF's argument that the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., and its regulations preclude plaintiff's FELA claim. Rather, the court concluded that the FRSA and its regulations do not preclude federal claims under FELA and rejected BNSF's other contentions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fair v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

Posted in: Transportation Law

by
Vargas and Villalobos were driving a tractor-trailer across the country. Villalobos was driving and Vargas was in the sleeper berth when the tractor-trailer rolled over, injuring Vargas. Vargas sued FMI (the motor carrier and trailer owner), Eves (the tractor owner), and Villalobos for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for FMI and Eves, concluding as a matter of law that neither was vicariously liable for Villalobos’s alleged negligence. The court of appeal reversed. Federal law requires motor carriers using leased vehicles to “have control of and be responsible for” such vehicles (49 U.S.C. 14102) in order to “protect the public from the tortious conduct of the often judgment-proof truck lessor operators.” Defendants did not establish as a matter of undisputed fact that the tractor’s owner is entitled to the protection of the “Graves Amendment,” 49 U.S.C. 30106(a), which shields owners of leased vehicles “engaged in the business or trade of renting or leasing motor vehicles” from vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of their lessee’s drivers. View "Vargas v. FMI, Inc." on Justia Law