Faulk v. City of Citrus Heights CA3

Filed 3/27/15 Faulk v. City of Citrus Heights CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

STEPHAN FAULK,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C072669

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34200900059016CUPAGDS) CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Stephan Faulk sustained injuries when hit by a car while he rode his bicycle across the intersection of Antelope Road and the Interstate 80 westbound off-ramp in Citrus Heights, California. Faulk obtained a default judgment against Chantel Lee Salas, the driver who hit him. However, a jury returned a defense verdict on Faulk’s claims against the City of Citrus Heights (City); Ikramm Chaudry and Hiru Desai, two employees of the City; De Silva Gates Construction, L.P. (De Silva Gates), the prime contractor of a nearby construction site; and Harris & Associates Inc., the former construction site manager.

1

Faulk appeals the judgment based on the defense verdict. He contends (1) the trial court erred in failing to remove a juror who stated during trial that he had already made up his mind in favor of the defense, and (2) Faulk should have been allowed to introduce into evidence the preliminary construction plans prepared by URS Corporation (URS). We conclude the trial court did not err in allowing the juror to remain seated after he repeatedly assured the court he would await the close of evidence before making a decision. We also conclude the trial court properly excluded the URS preliminary construction plans because the plans were not implemented and would have tended to confuse jurors. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Factual Background This is an appeal by a plaintiff from a defense verdict by the jury. “Accordingly, our summary of the significant facts will cast the evidence in its light most favorable to the judgment, drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in favor of defendants.” (Thompson v. Miller (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 327, 330.) Stated in the light most favorable to the judgment, the evidence at trial showed the following: On May 20, 2009, Faulk was driving a rapidly overheating car on Zenith Drive in Citrus Heights. Faulk got out his bicycle and began to ride through a construction site on the south side of Antelope and Tupelo Drive. De Silva Gates was the prime contractor for the construction, which involved replacing the concrete sidewalk. Antelope Road was reduced to one lane as a result of the construction. Faulk proceeded along the sidewalk of Antelope Road until he arrived at the Interstate 80 westbound off-ramp. At the intersection, Faulk stopped and pressed the cross-walk button. To his left, Salas was in her car and looking to the left, i.e., away from Faulk’s direction. When the light changed to allow Faulk to cross, he attempted to get Salas’s attention. Faulk thought it was safe to cross the intersection because Salas’s car was stationary. Faulk was riding his bicycle across the intersection when Salas suddenly accelerated and hit him. Salas got out and