Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental 4/22/08 CA4/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: D048759

Case Date: 07/10/2008

Preview:Filed 4/22/08 Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS VON ARX, et al. Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MAX EQUIPMENT RENTAL, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D048759

(Super. Ct. No. GIN038509)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jacqueline M. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. Plaintiff Douglas Von Arx (Plaintiff) was injured in a workplace accident involving a trenching attachment (trencher) for a ride-upon trenching machine, manufactured by defendant Charles Machine Works, Inc. (Charles), and rented to his employer by Max Equipment Rental, LLC (Max). Plaintiff brought this action against defendants and respondents Max and Charles for negligence, strict products liability, and breaches of warranties, alleging that his injuries were caused by defects in the trencher or negligence in its maintenance. Shortly thereafter, the workers' compensation insurance

carrier for his employer, Harbor Specialty Insurance Company (Harbor), intervened in the action and Plaintiff and Harbor (collectively referred to as Appellants) took the matter to jury trial.1 At the conclusion of Appellants' presentation of evidence, the trial court granted defendants' motion for a nonsuit on the ground Plaintiff had failed to establish the element of causation of his injuries from either the alleged defects or negligence. Appellants challenge the resulting judgment for Max, including its award of expert fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998.2 Although Appellants also challenged the judgment against Charles, that portion of the appeal has been settled and a request for dismissal is forthcoming. On appeal, Appellants contend the trial court erroneously failed to recognize that they had presented sufficient expert opinion and nonexpert evidence from which a trier of fact could have found causation of the injury from the actions or inactions of Max, on either negligence or design defect theories. Appellants further argue the trial court erroneously excluded certain opinion evidence from an employee of Max, its former service manager. (Evid. Code,

Download Von Arx v. Max Equipment Rental 4/22/08 CA4/1.pdf