Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a truck-motorcycle accident.  On May 9, 2022, Defendant James Adam Eubanks II (“Eubanks”) was operating a tractor-trailer in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant D&E Logistics, Inc. (“D&E”). (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SSUMF”) No. 1.)  Eubanks was travelling southbound on the 405 freeway, when he felt his steering wheel “jump” from side to side and tighten up. (SSUMF No. 2.) Eubanks immediately slowed down and looked for a safe place to pull over. (SSUMF No. 3.)  

After pulling over, Eubanks placed three orange safety triangles approximately 100 feet behind the tractor-trailer. (SSUMF No. 6k.)  After inspecting the front of the tractor-trailer, Eubanks noticed the right steer tire was no longer on the rim. (SSUMF No. 7.)  Plaintiff Alexander Young alleges that while riding his motorcycle on the 405 freeway, he collided with Eubanks’s separated tire in the HOV lane, which caused Plaintiff to sustain serious personal injuries. (SSUMF No. 16.) 

After reporting the situation to his supervisor, Eubanks noticed CHP slowing traffic in a zigzag motion near where he placed the orange safety triangles. (SSUMF No. 8.)  A CHP Officer rolled the missing tire from the tractor-trailer across the road and toward the right shoulder. (SSUMF No. 12.)  Upon inspecting the tire, Eubanks noticed a piece of metal lodged in the tire. (SSUMF No. 13.)  The small piece of metal, most likely a weld nut, was approximately 2 inches in diameter and 1/8th inch thick. (SSUMF No. 18.) The shaft of the weld nut was approximately 0.5 inches in diameter. (SSUMF No. 19.) The length of the shaft of the weld nut is unknown but would have been at least 1 inch to puncture the tire. (SSUMF No. 20.) Eubanks never saw the piece of metal that punctured the tire prior to the accident.  (SSUMF No. 14.)  The small piece of metal, most likely a weld nut, caused rapid deflation of Eubanks’ tire.  (SSUMF No. 17.)  The deflated tire came off the rim as Eubanks pulled over onto the right shoulder.  (SSUMF No. 21.) 

According to Defendants’ expert, an attentive driver in Eubanks’ position is “extremely unlikely to notice an unexpected, small object on the road while driving on a freeway, as detection of such a small, improbable stimulus is not something a typical driver would be attending to.”  (SSUMF No. 22.)   Given that response times to unexpected, inconspicuous hazards are typically more than 1.5 seconds, Defendants’ expert opines that “even if Eubanks had detected the weld nut (which is extremely unlikely), he would have been unable to take effective evasive action to avoid it.”  (SSUMF No. 23.)  

A noticed inspection of the tractor trailer indicated the tires were not properly maintained including evidence of spot wear, rib depression, bead deformation, compression groove wear and wheel rim flange wear.  (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (“PSSUMF”) No. 2.) Photos of the tire that came off indicated negligence maintenance which contributed to the tire leaving the rim wheel, including belt lift separation, bead deformation and compression groove wear.  (PSSUMF No. 5.)   

According to Plaintiff’s expert, Defendants did not follow industry standards in properly checking the tire pressure during pre-trip inspections and instead only checking air pressure every ninety days.  (PSSUMF No. 6.)  Plaintiff’s expert also opines that had Eubanks should have pulled over the truck immediately after feeling the steering wheel jump and tighten, which would have prevented the tire leaving the wheel rim and avoided the resultant accident.  (PSSUMF No. 7.)  Instead, the truck’s event data recorder shows Eubanks continued to drive two miles after running over the weld nut which was a contributing factor to the steer tire leaving the wheel rim and causing the accident.  (PSSUMF No. 8.)   

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.  Defendants argue that as a matter of law, Plaintiff cannot establish duty because the incident was not reasonably foreseeable given Eubanks could not reasonably foresee that a small piece of metal debris would be on the road and would cause his tire to separate from the tractor-trailer.  In addition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot as a matter of law prove breach of the duty of care because Eubanks acted as a reasonably prudent person would under the same or similar circumstances given he immediately and carefully moved his truck to the right shoulder after feeling his steering wheel jump and tighten up and he put orange safety triangles at the rear of his truck to signal a hazard.  Further, because Eubanks was not negligent, Defendants argue that D&E also could not have been negligent.   

LEGAL STANDARD  

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)  Because a motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.  

The court cannot consider an impleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary judgment may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal. App.4th 1334,1342.) 

Second, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiffs cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (quoting Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (p)(2)).) 

Third, once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause(s) of action alleged or the affirmative defense(s) claimed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p); see generally Bush v. Parents without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.) 

In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 843.) Summary judgment is properly granted only if the moving party's evidence establishes that there is no issue of material fact to be tried. (Lipson v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374.) 

DISCUSSION 

Duty of Care 

Defendants argue that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude they had a duty of care in this instance when it was not reasonably foreseeable for Eubanks to notice a small metal object that would puncture his tire, causing it to deflate and collide with Plaintiff’s motorcycle.  Plaintiff argues that while Eubanks may not have reasonably foreseen the small metal debris, he should have reasonably foreseen that his failure to properly maintain his truck tires would cause the accident.  The Court agrees with Plaintiff that there is a triable issue on duty. 

“Whether a legal duty is present in a particular case is a question of law for the court.” (Lindstrom v. Hertz Corp. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 644, 648.)  Duty is particularly “well suited to resolution by motion for summary judgment.” (Wiseman & Reese, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial Claims & Defense (The Rutter Group 2016), ¶ 6:13.)  

The California Supreme Court has set forth the following factors for determining whether duty exists in a given case: (1) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; (2) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; (3) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered; (4) the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct; (5) the policy of preventing future harm; (6) the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach; and (7) the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112-113.)  

Foreseeability of harm is the most important Rowland factor. (K.G. v. S.B. (2020) 46 Cal. App. 5th 625, 632, (quoting Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108, 113.) “When foreseeability is analyzed to determine the existence or scope of a duty, foreseeability is also a question of law.” (Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 224, 237.)  

Here, Defendants argue that the possibility that a small piece of metal debris would puncture Eubanks’ truck’s tire, causing it to deflate, separate from the truck, and collide with Plaintiff’s motorcycle was not reasonably foreseeable.  According to Eubanks’ expert, Eubanks could not have seen the metal debris, possibly a small weld nut, given its size.  An attentive diver in Eubanks’s position is extremely unlikely to notice an unexpected, small object on the road while driving on a freeway, as detection of such a small, improbable stimulus is not something to which a typical driver would be attentive.  (SSUMF No. 22)  

However, Plaintiff contends that the weld nut was not the cause of the accident.  Rather, Plaintiff maintains Defendants negligently inspected the air pressure of the tires before the trip. (PDDUMF No. 6). A post-incident inspection of Eubanks’ truck indicated a history of poor tire maintenance. (PSSUMF No. 2.)  Driving with the tire underinflated caused bead deformation, belt lift separation and compression groove wear—all of which contributed to the steer tire becoming unseated and coming off the wheel.  (PSSUMF No. 5.)  These facts raise a triable issue as to whether Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to properly maintain and inspect the tires before driving the truck on the freeway.    

Breach of Duty 

Defendants argue that even if there was a duty, there was no breach because Eubanks acted responsibly in pulling over immediately upon feeling his steering wheel jump and tighten up.  Meanwhile, Plaintiff argues that Eubanks did not act responsibly because he continued to drive for two miles after he felt the steering wheel jump and tighten, and a reasonable driver would have pulled over immediately.  Plaintiff also argues Eubanks breached the duty of care by failing to properly maintain the truck’s tires.  The Court agrees with Plaintiff that there is a triable issue on breach.   

According to Plaintiff’s expert, Defendants did not follow industry standards in properly checking the tire pressure during pre-trip inspections and instead only checking air pressure every ninety days.  (PSSUMF No. 6.)  Plaintiff’s expert also opines that had Eubanks should have pulled over the truck immediately after feeling the steering wheel jump and tighten, which would have prevented the tire leaving the wheel rim and avoided the resultant accident.  (PSSUMF No. 7.)  Instead, the truck’s event data recorder shows Eubanks continued to drive two miles after running over the weld nut which was a contributing factor to the steer tire leaving the wheel rim and causing the accident.  (PSSUMF No. 8.)  On these facts, the Court concludes there is a triable issue on whether there is a breach of duty.   

Vicarious Liability 

Defendants next argue that because Eubanks is not negligent, D&E also cannot be held vicariously liable to Plaintiff.  As noted above, the Court concludes there is a triable issue on duty and breach, and accordingly there is also a triable issue on vicarious liability.   

Spoliation  

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have spoliated evidence by failing to retain the pre-trip inspection report performed by Eubanks for the date of the accident or the reports for the months prior to the incident.  Plaintiff also contends that Defendants did not keep the tire that came off Eubanks’ truck.  Plaintiff argues that these alleged acts of spoliation create a triable issue, precluding summary judgment.  The Court need not decide whether spoliation occurred at this time, because the Court has already concluded there is a triable issue on duty and breach. 

Summary Adjudication 

In his Opposition, Plaintiff states that he does not take the position that Defendants were negligent in driving over the small metal piece on the freeway.  In their reply, Defendants request that the court grant summary adjudication of this particular issue.  The Court denies that request because Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 437(f)(1)  provides that ‘[a] motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 29, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court