BOWMAN v. WYATT Part-II
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>BOWMAN v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >BOWMAN v. WYATT</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/1/10<br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION FOUR<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=336 valign=top ><br /> <br/>BARRY A. BOWMAN,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>TOMMIE WYATT, JR.,<br /> et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=336 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B207468<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles County<br><br /> Super. Ct. No. BC329390)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM <br /> PART I….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><i<br /> >B. The Peculiar Risk<br /> Doctrine as Applied to Injuries Caused by Large Construction Vehicles</i><br /> <br/>In several published cases, the appellate<br /> courts have discussed the contours of the peculiar risk doctrine as applied to<br /> liability for injuries caused by large construction vehicles. The earliest of these cases is <i<br /> >Anderson v. L. C. Smith Constr. Co.</i> (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 436 (<i<br /> >Anderson</i>), where an engineer working on<br /> a freeway construction project was killed at the jobsite when a dump truck<br /> loaded with asphalt backed up over him. <br /> The decedent had been marking a chalk line for a paving machine to follow<br /> when he was struck; the paving operation required the paving machine to move<br /> forward along the chalk line, while dump trucks backed up to the paver to load asphalt into its hopper. (<i >Id</i>. at pp. 438-439.) <br /> The decedent's survivors sued the dump truck driver, the general<br /> contractor, and the trucking company to whom the hauling of asphalt had been<br /> subcontracted. The jury found for<br /> defendants. (<i<br /> >Ibid</i>.) <br /> <br/>Plaintiffs appealed, contending that<br /> the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on peculiar risk. (<i >Id</i>. at p. 439.) The<br /> appellate court agreed that a peculiar risk instruction should have been given,<br /> concluding without analysis as follows: <br /> â€