Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV08210, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08210    Hearing Date: January 25, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Hino Motor Manufacturing USA, Inc. And Hino Motors Sales U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion to Strike

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2022, Plaintiffs K.B., A.B., Jason Bruss (“Jason”) and Wilma Bruss (“Wilma”) filed this action against Defendants America Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”), Honda Motor Co., LTD (“HMC”), Hino Motors Manufactuing USA, Inc. (“HMM”) and Hino Motors Sales U.S.A., Inc. (“HMS”) for product liability and negligence.

On July 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the FAC.

On November 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the SAC for four causes of action for strict liability—design defect, two causes of action for negligent design, negligent infliction of emotional distress and exemplary damages.

On January 12, 2023, the Court dismissed HMC, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request.

On December 12, 2022, HMM and HMS (“Moving Defendants”) filed Motions to Strike to be heard on January 25, 2023. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On January 18, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for September 5, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request the Court strike the request for punitive damages and allegations of malice.

Plaintiffs request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 721.) These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294 (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." (Coll. Hosp., Inc., supra, 8 Cal. 4th at 725 [examining Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1)].)

“[S]imple negligence will not justify an award of punitive damages.” (Spencer v. San Francisco Brick Co. (1907) 5 Cal.App.126, 128.) Civil Code § 3294(a) states: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” “[E]ven gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.” (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal App 3d 82, 87.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ SAC alleges that Defendants manufactured the subject vehicles. Plaintiffs allege that while driving their vehicle, the driver of the “Hino Truck” collided with them, pushing their vehicle into the car in front of them. The Hino Truck did not have forward collision avoidance technology (“FCAT”), or a front-end structure designed to prevent the truck from overriding passenger sedans, resulting in injuries to K.B. when the Hino Truck pushed the rear structures of Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Plaintiffs cite to government agencies who recommended various safety structures in order to make both the Hinto Truck and Plaintiffs’ vehicle safer.

The Court finds that the facts, as pled, do not provide a basis for a claim for punitive damages. No allegation provides a basis for punitive damages stemming from fraud or oppression—Plaintiffs do not, for example, allege that Defendants stated these features were in the car, but then did not actually implement them. Thus, punitive damages must stem from malice. Malice requires intent to injure, or despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. There is clearly no allegation of intent. Thus, any punitive damages would stem from despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.

Plaintiffs argue that malice is not the correct standard for punitive damage sin a product liabilities case, as California courts have held that punitive damages may be recoverable for nondeliberate or unintentional torts. CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 1255, 1261. This is true of any case, as malice need not be intentional. However, Plaintiff argues that this is distinct from all other applications of punitive damages. Instead, punitive damages may be awarded “if it is shown that defendant placed a product on the market in conscious disregard of the safety of consumer and others.” Ehrhardt v. Brunswick, Inc. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 734, 741. As pointed out in Moving Defendants’ reply, both of the cases cited specifically for not needing despicable conduct were decided prior to the 1987 revision of CCP §3294, which added the word “despicable” for findings for malice. In reviewing the cases cited, it is clear to the Court that neither is attempting to create an exception to the rule but was instead ruling based on the current CCP at the time. Nowhere in CCP §3294 is there a special exception for products liability cases.

The allegations in the complaint do not rise to the level of despicable conduct. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not comply with governmental recommendations—not requirements. Failure to abide by recommendations is not enough to demonstrate despicable conduct. Neither is ‘wrongful conduct for a profit.’ The Court grants the motion.

Additionally, the Court strikes the cause of action for punitive damages, as this is not a proper cause of action.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Hino Motor Manufacturing USA, Inc. And Hino Motors Sales U.S.A., Inc.’s Motions to Strike are GRANTED, with 30 days leave to amend.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.