Duarte v. Kang CA2/8

Filed 2/13/14 Duarte v. Kang CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

GRACIELA DUARTE et al., B243364

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC431434) v.

SARA KANG et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Debre Katz Weintraub, Judge. Affirmed.

Marchiondo & Associates and Philip L. Marchiondo for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Tharpe & Howell, Eric. B. Kunkel and Charles D. May for Defendants and Respondents.

**********

Plaintiffs and appellants Graciela Duarte and Maria Luz Castro appeal from a judgment following a jury trial in which the jury found in favor of defendants and respondents Sara Kang and Yang Mi Kim. Plaintiffs’ sole contention on appeal is there is no substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. Defendants raise multiple arguments in opposition, but primarily argue plaintiffs failed to bring up an adequate record in support of their claim of error. We agree with defendants as to the inadequacy of the record and therefore affirm. This appeal arises from a personal injury action alleging damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident. In their opening brief before this court, plaintiffs assert they were involved in a two-car accident that took place in a signal-controlled intersection, and that defendant Kang was the driver of the other car. Plaintiffs contend the signal had turned red and they were lawfully exiting the intersection when Kang hit them after entering the intersection against a red light. Plaintiffs further contend that, at trial, Kang asserted she entered the intersection on a yellow signal and plaintiffs illegally turned in front of her, failing to yield her the right-of-way. As their sole appellate contention, plaintiffs argue the jury’s special verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, plaintiffs contend the jury answered “yes” to the question that defendant Kang was negligent, but then answered “no” as to whether she was a substantial factor in causing any of plaintiffs’ damages, even though in answering the final questions as to apportionment of fault, the jury attributed 10 percent responsibility to Kang. Plaintiffs contend the defense verdict cannot be supported by substantial evidence because, if defendant Kang was 10 percent negligent, then she must have been at least part of the cause of the collision and therefore must owe some amount of damages. The special verdict form appears to be defective.1 Question one asked if Kang was negligent (the jury answered “yes”), and questions two and four asked if Kang’s negligence was a