Austin Buist et al vs The State of California, Department of Transportation et al

Case Number

20CV03089

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/27/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Good Faith Settlement

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons discussed herein, the hearing on Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is continued to December 15, 2023. Plaintiff shall file a motion for approval of a minor’s compromise, as to Maverick Buist, to be heard prior to the date for hearing on the motion for determination of good faith settlement. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. shall serve notice of this ruling on all parties, including The State of California Department of Transportation, and file a proof of service, no later than October 31, 2023.

Background:

This action arises out of a vehicle collision that occurred on U.S. Highway 101 (the highway) at the intersection (the intersection) of Las Varas Ranch Access Road (Las Varas) in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County north of the City of Goleta. The operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed on December 16, 2020, by plaintiffs Austin Buist and Maverick Buist, who is a minor, individually and as heirs at law and successors in interest to Allyson Jean Buist, who is deceased, and the Estate of Allyson Jean Buist. (Note: For ease of reference, the court will refer to plaintiffs and decedent by their first names. No disrespect is intended.) The SAC alleges eight causes of action: (1) negligence/negligence per se (against defendants Garrett Staab (Staab) and Spirit Flow, Inc. (Spirit Flow)); (2) dangerous condition of property (against defendant the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans)); (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress-bystander (against Staab, Spirit Flow, and defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota Motor Manufacturing, California, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.); (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress-direct victim (against Staab, Spirit Flow, and the Toyota defendants identified above); (5) negligence-product liability (against the Toyota defendants identified above); (6) strict product liability (against the Toyota defendants identified above); (7) breach of express warranty (against the Toyota defendants identified above); and, (8) breach of implied warranty (against the Toyota defendants identified above). Pursuant to the court’s order dated January 4, 2022, this matter is related to Santa Barbara Superior Court case number 21CV03400 entitled Anthony M. Koehl vs. Garrett Staab.

As alleged in the SAC, on September 10, 2019, Austin, Maverick, and Allyson were in a Toyota vehicle traveling southbound on the highway approaching the intersection. At the same time, Staab was travelling northbound on the highway. At the intersection, which is owned or controlled by Caltrans, the highway has a speed limit of 65 miles per hour and consists of two southbound lanes and two northbound lanes with designated left turn lanes onto Las Varas for both northbound and southbound traffic. Staab, who was employed by and running business errands for Spirit Flow, was travelling northbound on the highway. After missing his exit, Staab made a left U-turn at Las Varas, turning in front of Austin who, despite taking evasive maneuvers, was unable to avoid colliding with Staab’s vehicle. Austin, Maverick, Allyson were each injured in the collision. Allyson later died as a result of her injuries.

Staab, Spirit Flow, Caltrans, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (Toyota Sales), Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (Toyota Engineering), and Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota Corp.) each filed their answers to the SAC generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Spirit Flow, Staab, Caltrans, Toyota Sales, and Toyota Engineering each filed cross-complaints. Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint on February 10, 2022, substituting David Alan Zaboski (Zaboski) for Doe 1. Zaboski filed an answer to the SAC on September 13, 2022.

On April 10, 2023, the court granted an application of Caltrans for determination of good faith settlement.

Plaintiffs and Toyota have reached an agreement regarding a settlement amount to resolve the entire action as to Toyota. Toyota now moves for determination of good faith settlement. The motion is unopposed.

 

Analysis:

Toyota’s motion is premature because the court has not approved a minor’s compromise as to Maverick.

“At no time has this court approved any minor’s compromise in this matter. Such approval is a prerequisite to a valid settlement. Since there never was a valid approval of minor’s compromise no legally valid settlement exists. A fortiori, no determination of a good faith settlement (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6) may be entered.” (Anderson v. Latimer (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 667, 676 (Anderson).) “Nor is the settlement binding [on the minor] until it is endorsed by the trial court. Subject to exceptions not applicable here, contracts are voidable by minors in California.” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338.)

As in Anderson, this court has not approved a minor’s compromise as to Maverick and, therefore, there is no valid settlement of his claims. As such, no determination of good faith settlement may be entered.

An application for determination of minor’s compromise must be heard prior to the hearing on the motion for determination of good faith settlement. Assuming that plaintiff will promptly file an application for approval of minor’s compromise, the present hearing date will be continued to a date sufficient to allow for a hearing on the application. The parties are advised that the court will not “rubber stamp” the application for approval of minor’s compromise, and that the moving party must strictly follow California Rules of Court, rule 7.950, et seq. and provide detailed information and documentation as required.

Although it is not before the court at the present time: The court realizes that it has already signed an order granting the application for determination of good faith settlement as between plaintiffs and Caltrans. The parties did not advise the court that there had been no approval of a minor’s compromise on behalf of Maverick and the court did not realize that it had not been approved. As the order granting the application for determination of good faith settlement was premature, the order is likely void or voidable and does not necessarily extinguish Caltrans’ liability. Caltrans is encouraged to take whatever steps are necessary to correct this error.