Navarrete v. Meyer

California Court of Appeal · Torts

Tortsconcert of actionaiding and abettingcivil conspiracyVehicle Code section 21701negligence per sesummary judgmentpassenger liability

Facts

Meyer was a front-seat passenger in a car driven by Brandon Coleman and directed him onto Skyview Drive, a residential street she knew had dips that could cause a speeding car to become airborne. She told Coleman about the dips, said it was fun to drive fast on them, and told him he should do it; shortly after turning onto the street, she told him to "go faster." Coleman accelerated to about 70 to 81 miles per hour, the car became airborne or caught air from the dips, he lost control, and the vehicle struck plaintiffs' parked car, killing Esteban Soto. Meyer admitted it was her idea to drive fast on Skyview Drive.

Issue

Whether, on summary judgment, the evidence created triable issues of material fact that Meyer could be held jointly liable as a passenger under a concert of action or civil conspiracy theory for encouraging Coleman's unlawful speeding, and whether her words and conduct could constitute willful interference with the driver under Vehicle Code section 21701.

Rule

A person may be liable under concert of action principles when she knows another's conduct breaches a duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to that conduct; a tacit understanding is enough and express agreement is unnecessary. Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort, but imposes co-equal liability when parties agree, expressly or tacitly, to commit a civil wrong and acts in furtherance cause damage. Vehicle Code section 21701 is construed broadly: physical interference is not required, and a person willfully interferes with a driver when she intentionally acts in a way that unreasonably affects the driver's control of the vehicle, even without specific intent to affect control.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Leah Ortiz rode in the front seat while Devin Cross drove through a neighborhood street posted at 25 mph. Leah, who knew the street had a steep crest that made fast cars lift off the pavement, told Devin that hitting it fast was fun and urged him twice to speed up; Devin accelerated, the car went airborne, and it struck a cyclist.

If the cyclist sues Leah on a concert-of-action theory and Leah moves for summary judgment arguing she never touched the steering wheel or pedals, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that concert-of-action/aiding-and-abetting liability may arise where the defendant knows another's conduct breaches a duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement. Physical interference is unnecessary for this theory. A passenger's urging to speed on a road she knows can make the car airborne creates a triable issue that she substantially encouraged the unlawful conduct and may be jointly liable for resulting harm.