Stroud v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist. CA1/2

Filed 5/15/15 Stroud v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JALAYZHA STROUD, Plaintiff and Appellant, A142004 v. ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT (Alameda County DISTRICT, Super. Ct. No. HG12627108) Defendant and Respondent.

Jalayzha Stroud (Stroud) sued Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) for harm she allegedly suffered when a bus she was riding in Hayward, California braked before colliding with a stopped truck. A jury found that AC Transit was negligent, but that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Stroud. The trial court entered judgment in favor of AC Transit. Stroud appeals, contending that no substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that AC Transit’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing injury to Stroud. However, Stroud did not designate a reporter’s transcript for the record in this case. Because we presume a judgment is correct and Stroud has not provided us a record adequate to evaluate her contention, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND On April 23, 2012, Stroud filed a complaint stating a single cause of action for negligence. She alleged that on January 19, 2011, she was a passenger on an AC Transit

1

bus and sustained “whiplash, facial injuries, bruising and permanent back damage” when the driver of the bus “slammed on the brakes” to avoid a collision. The parties stipulated to the following facts prior to trial: Stroud was a passenger on the bus, driven by Edwin Doyle Campbell, in Hayward, California. As the bus approached the intersection of Hesperian Boulevard and Cathy Way, a pickup truck stopped prior to passing through the intersection. The bus collided with the pickup truck and the driver of the truck left the scene before the police arrived. Following the collision, Stroud was transported by ambulance to Kaiser Hospital. Presentation of evidence in a jury trial commenced on April 1, 2014. Stroud’s case consisted of her own and her mother’s testimony Some hospital bills were also introduced into evidence. The defense case consisted of testimony by Campbell, a traffic collision report, and a video recorded by cameras on the bus around the time of the collision. The parties stipulated that the video depicted Stroud and her body movements at the time the bus braked and afterwards. The jury began deliberation at 10:43 a.m. on April 7, 2014. During deliberation, the jury asked to see certain of the video segments again. The jury reached a verdict at 1:42 p.m. that afternoon. The jury returned two factual findings on a special verdict form: (1) AC Transit had been negligent and (2) AC Transit’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Stroud.1 The trial court entered judgment in favor of AC Transit on April 7, 2007. Stroud timely filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2014. The record, as designated and provided by Stroud, consists of a clerk’s transcript but no reporter’s transcript of the trial or other proceedings. Nor did Stroud provide this court any of the trial exhibits. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.224(a)). AC Transit moved to augment the record to provide the transcript of Stroud’s trial testimony and requested transmittal of Exhibit 20, a video taken on board the bus that