## Facts

- Stephani Lynn Victor stood on a sidewalk behind a Ford Explorer driven by Michael Allen Hedges and owned by Thermtech, Inc.
- Hedges had parked the Explorer on the sidewalk in front of his apartment building to show Victor a compact disc player in the rear of the vehicle.
- Due to construction, northbound traffic on Hermosa Avenue was reduced to a single lane; the roadway had gravel, bumps, and potholes.
- Mark Williams drove a van northbound, looked down to fast-forward a cassette tape, and the van veered right; two tires hit the curb and blew out.
- The van went over the curb onto the sidewalk and struck Victor, causing serious injury.
- Victor sued for negligence and argued Hedges’s sidewalk parking violated California Vehicle Code § 22500, supporting negligence per se and common-law negligence.
- Victor offered expert testimony that the road conditions made a rightward veer foreseeable.

## Issues

1. Whether a violation of California Vehicle Code § 22500 (prohibiting parking on a sidewalk) supported negligence per se when the injury was caused by a third-party driver who left the roadway and struck a pedestrian on the sidewalk.
2. Whether Victor raised a triable issue that Hedges’s sidewalk parking and invitation to stand behind the vehicle created an unreasonable, foreseeable risk of harm under common-law negligence principles.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Hedges and Thermtech, Inc. and affirmed the denial of Victor’s motion for a new trial.
- Negligence per se did not apply because § 22500 was not designed to prevent the type of accident that occurred.
- Victor failed to raise a triable issue of material fact on common-law negligence because the harm was not reasonably foreseeable to an ordinarily prudent person in Hedges’s position.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory violation supports negligence per se only when the statute was designed to prevent the kind of occurrence and harm that actually happened.
- A prohibition on parking on sidewalks aims to prevent hazards created by vehicles at rest on sidewalks (e.g., obstruction and pedestrian impacts involving the parked vehicle), not injuries from an independently operated vehicle leaving the roadway.
- Foreseeability in negligence is assessed from the standpoint of an ordinarily prudent person; liability does not turn on extraordinary foresight.
- Expert testimony may inform factual questions but cannot expand the ordinary-prudence foreseeability standard beyond what a layperson would reasonably anticipate.
- A mere “but for” connection between a defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s location is insufficient where the intervening event is remote and extraordinary in relation to the defendant’s conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that the sidewalk-parking statute did not establish negligence per se for a pedestrian’s injuries caused by a third-party vehicle that left the roadway, and that no reasonable jury could find Hedges’s conduct created an unreasonable, foreseeable risk; summary judgment for Hedges and Thermtech was therefore affirmed.


Victor v. Hedges, 77 Cal. App. 4th 229, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466 (Ct. App. 1999)