BOWMAN v. WYATT
Filed 7/1/10
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
>
BARRY A. BOWMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TOMMIE WYATT, JR., et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B207468 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC329390) |
STORY CONTINUE FROM
PART I….
>B. The Peculiar Risk
Doctrine as Applied to Injuries Caused by Large Construction Vehicles
In several published cases, the appellate
courts have discussed the contours of the peculiar risk doctrine as applied to
liability for injuries caused by large construction vehicles. The earliest of these cases is >Anderson v. L. C. Smith Constr. Co. (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 436 ( >Anderson), where an engineer working on
a freeway construction project was killed at the jobsite when a dump truck
loaded with asphalt backed up over him.
The decedent had been marking a chalk line for a paving machine to follow
when he was struck; the paving operation required the paving machine to move
forward along the chalk line, while dump trucks backed up to the paver to load asphalt into its hopper. (Id. at pp. 438-439.)
The decedent's survivors sued the dump truck driver, the general
contractor, and the trucking company to whom the hauling of asphalt had been
subcontracted. The jury found for
defendants. ( >Ibid.)
Plaintiffs appealed, contending that
the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on peculiar risk. (Id. at p. 439.) The
appellate court agreed that a peculiar risk instruction should have been given,
concluding without analysis as follows:
â€