Smith v. Moghaddam CA2/7

Filed 2/9/16 Smith v. Moghaddam CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

SHARON MECHELE SMITH, B254775

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC057332) v.

MAJID SHEIBANI MOGHADDAM et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Frank J. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed. Snyder ♦ Dorenfeld, Bradley A. Snyder and Rodger S. Greiner for Plaintiff and Appellant. Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen C. Pasarow and Maria A. Grover for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Sharon Mechele Smith brought this action against defendants Majid Sheibani Moghaddam and Tri City Transport Systems, Inc. (Tri City), claiming that Moghaddam’s negligent operation of his taxi caused her to fall while she was riding her motor scooter. At trial, the parties presented competing versions of the facts, each asserting that the other was at fault in causing the accident. A jury sided with defendants, finding in a special verdict form that Moghaddam was not negligent, and the court entered judgment in defendants’ favor. Smith appeals from that judgment and raises a single issue, asserting instructional error. She contends that the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine, as set forth in CACI No. 452, requires reversal of the judgment. That doctrine, when applicable, holds a party confronting a sudden emergency to a lesser standard of care. Smith claims that she was entitled to have the jury apply that standard when evaluating whether she was responsible for the accident. Because the jury found that Moghaddam was not negligent, however, any error in failing to give an instruction bearing on Smith’s comparative negligence could not have prejudiced her. We accordingly affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. THE ACCIDENT In September 2011, Smith bought a new motor scooter. At that time, she was an “inexperienced” rider. The accident occurred approximately one month later. On October 11, 2011, Smith was driving her scooter on San Fernando Road in Glendale, California. San Fernando Road is a two-way street with two lanes in each direction of travel. The Golden Farms Market Plaza (Plaza) is located on, and has a driveway that exits onto, San Fernando Road. There is curb parking on either side of that driveway. The number one lane on San Fernando Road is the one closest to the center of the street; the number two lane is the one closest to the curb. Smith claimed that she was driving approximately 35 miles per hour in the number two lane on San Fernando Road. As she approached the Plaza area, a taxi driven by