Pro Se v. City of Santa Monica CA2/3

Filed 1/29/21 Pro Se v. City of Santa Monica CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

PRO SE, B296195

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC605644) v.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Frederick C. Shaller, Judge. Affirmed. Pro Se, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. George S. Cardona, Interim City Attorney, Lance S. Gams, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Karen S. Duryea, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Plaintiff Pro Se (plaintiff) appeals a judgment entered in favor of the City of Santa Monica (City) after a jury rejected plaintiff’s claims that he suffered personal injuries as a result of the negligence of a City employee. As we discuss, plaintiff forfeited all of his appellate arguments by failing to raise them below, and thus we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 7, 2015, plaintiff, who suffers from a disability, was a passenger on a Big Blue Bus operated by the City. Plaintiff was seated in a wheelchair that was tethered to the floor of the bus with straps. As the bus traveled on Fourth Street in Santa Monica, the driver applied the brakes to avoid what he believed was a vehicle coming into his lane. Plaintiff claimed the bus’s abrupt stop caused him to be thrown from his wheelchair and to suffer injuries. Plaintiff sued the City for general and motor vehicle negligence. The case was tried to a jury, which on July 16, 2018 returned a special verdict for the City. The jury found that the City was negligent, but the City’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries. On January 22, 2019, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the City and against plaintiff. Plaintiff timely appealed from the judgment. DISCUSSION Plaintiff contends: (1) the trial court failed to offer him appropriate accommodations for his disability during trial; (2) the special verdict form was ambiguous and confusing to the jury; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by seating juror number 6, who was biased against plaintiff. We consider each of these contentions below.