Cauwels v. Johnson

1

TIMOTHY CAUWELS, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DANA JOHNSON, et al., Defendants and Respondents

A154493

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

June 7, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-13-530331

STEWART, P.J.

Sergeant Timothy Cauwels, an officer with the Pinole Police Department, was on-duty when fleeing felon Java Taylor (Taylor) rammed a stolen rental car into his police cruiser. Taylor had obtained the car from a person who, by use of fraudulent identification, had stolen the car from DTG Operations, Inc., doing business as Dollar Rent A Car (DTG) in San Francisco. Cauwels sued DTG and various employees for personal injury. DTG moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Cauwels's claims were barred by the firefighter's rule, a common law doctrine precluding emergency responders from suing a defendant for negligence when the negligent conduct in question caused the emergency that summoned the responders. On that basis, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DTG.

On appeal, Cauwels argues that by granting summary judgment in favor of DTG, the trial court erred in several respects. Preliminarily Cauwels contends that the firefighter's rule does not even apply to his conduct because he was not involved in the actual pursuit and believed it had ended before Taylor rammed his car. In the alternative, Cauwels maintains this lawsuit falls within the common law and statutory exceptions to the firefighter's rule.

We disagree with Cauwels's claims of error^[1] and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

I. Theft of Rental Car

The following facts are undisputed. On February 4, 2011, an employee of DTG in San Francisco rented a car to a man who claimed to be "Rashawn Walker." The rental agreement provided a date of birth and driver's license number. The record reflects that the actual Rashawn Walker who has a different birthdate and driver's license number, did not rent the vehicle from DTG on February 4 2011. The rental agreement specified that the car was due back on February 11, 2011. The car was never returned. On March 17, 2011, a regional manager at DTG filed a stolen vehicle report with the San Francisco Police Department.

II. Stolen Rental Car Involved in Police Chase

On April 6, 2011, Taylor committed a theft at a Rite-Aid in Hercules. Taylor used the stolen rental car as a get-away car to flee the scene.

Cauwels was on duty with the Pinole Police Department when he heard over his radio that the Hercules Police Department was in pursuit of a person who had committed a theft at a Rite-Aid. Cauwels heard that the pursuit was heading westbound on San Pablo Avenue toward Pinole. Cauwels was not requested to participate in the pursuit. He planned to determine the path of the pursuit and trail it if it remained in Pinole. Cauwels wanted to prevent potential accidents involving vehicles that might encounter the police pursuit. He responded to the anticipated path of the chase with his emergency lights activated. As he approached the intersection of San Pablo Avenue and Oak Ridge Avenue, the traffic light was red. In response to a signal transmitted from Cauwels's police car, the traffic light turned green. Cauwels did not enter the intersection because the pursuit was coming towards him and he did not want to pull out in front of the pursuit.

Before the pursuit reached his location, Cauwels heard over the police radio that the suspect had gotten into a collision. At the intersection, Cauwels checked for cross traffic. He saw that traffic on San Pablo Avenue had stopped for the red light. Cauwels did not see the Hercules Police Department pursuit or any other police vehicles. Seeing it was clear, Cauwels entered the intersection. Once in the intersection, Cauwels looked to his right and suddenly saw a car approaching him, travelling on San Pablo Avenue on the wrong side of the street. Moments later, his patrol car was broadsided by the stolen rental car driven by Taylor.

III. Ensuing Litigation

A. Personal Injury Complaint

Cauwels, joined with his wife, filed a complaint against DTG and its employees, alleging claims for: 1) negligence; 2) negligence per se; 3) negligent entrustment; 4) negligent hiring, retention, training, or supervision; 5) corporate negligence; 6) product liability negligence; 7) strict products liability; and 8) loss of consortium. Cauwels alleged that DTG and its employees negligently rented a vehicle to an unknown person who presented a facially invalid license, which reflected an identification number and expiration date that were not in conformance with standards for valid California driver's licenses. DTG and its employees knew or should have known that a person presenting an invalid driver's license to rent a vehicle was likely to allow the rented vehicle to be driven recklessly by incompetent persons and/or used to commit crimes. DTG negligently utilized a defective computer system that could not recognize obvious errors and incomplete information on California driver's licenses. "As a result of [DTG's] negligence, [DTG] entrusted the vehicle to an unknown, unidentified individual, which made possible the vehicle's use on the day of the incident to cause a high-speed collision and severe injuries" to Cauwels.

The City of Pinole (City) filed a complaint against DTG, seeking reimbursement for worker's compensation payments made on behalf of Cauwels. The City also filed a complaint in intervention in the Cauwels's action; the two actions were later consolidated.

B. DTG's First Summary Judgment Motion

In March 2014, DTG filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that DTG owed no legal duty to Cauwels and that no causal connection existed between DTG's conduct and Cauwels's injuries. DTG argued that" 'the causal connection between the alleged conduct of the rental agency and plaintiff's injury could hardly be more attenuated.' "

In opposition, Cauwels argued an unbroken chain of causation existed because" 'by allowing a fraudulent renter to take the vehicle, DTG created a situation where negligent driving by the criminal and/or his accomplice was foreseeable. Since [DTG] made . . . Taylor's conduct possible and [DTG] should have foreseen vehicle accidents, [DTG] should be held liable for . . . Taylor's negligent driving.' "

At the hearing on the motion, the trial court expressed concern" 'about the causation with the intervening driver'" and noted that Cauwels had to "get around the causation issue." The trial court denied the motion without prejudice to allow the parties to conduct additional discovery.

C. DTG's Second Motion for Summary Judgment

In October 2014, DTG filed a second motion for summary judgment, again asserting that no causal connection existed between DTG's alleged negligence and the collision.

In opposition, Cauwels maintained that DTG's negligent rental was the first in a series of connected events that led to Cauwels's injuries. Cauwels argued that" 'it was highly foreseeable to DTG that [its] vehicle, when negligently rented to a criminal who committed identity fraud to obtain the vehicle, would be driven negligently and cause an auto accident. Auto accidents resulting from negligent rental of vehicles are foreseeable and are not "superseding causes."' "

In June 2015, the trial court granted DTG's second motion for summary judgment, finding DTG did not owe a duty to Cauwels as a matter of law given the attenuated chain of causation. "[N]ot only did the accident occur in another county, several weeks after the rental, during a police chase not caused by a report of the vehicle theft, but the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was different than the individual who rented the vehicle. If the Court were to find duty existed here, it would be 'perpetual and unlimited in scope.' "

D. Cauwels's Motion for Reconsideration

Cauwels moved for reconsideration of the trial court's order granting DTG's second motion for summary judgment on the grounds that he had discovered new facts showing a causal link between the allegedly negligent rental and his injuries. Specifically, Cauwels produced the deposition testimony of two former DTG employees regarding DTG's 1) prior knowledge of car rental crimes, demonstrating a purported"' "nexus" between fraudulently obtained vehicle[s] and increased crime, reckless driving, and danger to the public,'" 2) policies and procedures that were in place" 'to prevent fraudulent rentals and resulting crime,'" and 3) knowledge regarding" 'criminal sharing of fraudulently obtained vehicles, and distant, long term criminal use'" of those vehicles. Cauwels also provided a declaration from Taylor, in which she indicated that she had received the car from "Tony," whom she believed had stolen the car from DTG.

The trial court granted the motion for reconsideration due to" 'new information about the closeness of the connection between [DTG's] alleged negligence and [Cauwels's] harm.' "^[2]

E. DTG's Third Motion for Summary Judgment

In June 2016, DTG filed a third motion for summary judgment, this time arguing that the firefighter's rule provided a complete defense to this action.

In opposition, Cauwels argued the firefighter's rule did not apply because he "was not involved in the police pursuit" of Taylor. Cauwels maintained that he believed the chase had ended. Alternately, Cauwels argued that the common law and statutory exceptions to the firefighter's rule applied as DTG was (1) "not a cause of the incident[,]" but that its "conduct permitted a third party's negligence[;]" and 2) Taylor committed "subsequent intentional conduct, including deliberately ramming . . . Cauwels's vehicle."

In reply, DTG argued that...