Motor vehicle operators are subject to the general duty of due care as “everyone is responsible … for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person”, and thus can be liable for injuries caused by the failure to exercise reasonable care in operation of the vehicle under the circumstances. In one case it was held that the driver who parked his tractor-trailer rig alongside interstate highway to eat snack despite “emergency parking only” sign could be liable for wrongful death of negligent pickup driver who swerved off highway and rear-ended rig (rejecting court of appeal conclusion that rig driver owed no duty to avoid collision between rig and negligent driver) [Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51]]. like other statutes pertaining to motorists, refers to “operators” rather than “drivers.” Vehicle “operation” is a broader concept and encompasses various acts fairly regarded as a necessary incident to driving, such as stopping, parking and exiting the vehicle. Moreover, businesses, such as shopping centers, restaurants and bars, have an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to secure their premises, as well as adjacent common areas within their control (e.g., parking lots), against reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. [Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill].
Normally, information about medical conditions entirely different from the injury sued upon are beyond the scope of discovery (not “relevant to the subject matter”). However, medical records pertaining to an unrelated condition are discoverable on a showing of “good cause” if the condition is relevant to the issue of proximate causation. [Ev.C. § 999; Slagle v. Super.Ct. (Maryon) (1989) 211 CA3d 1309, 1314–1315, 260 CR 122, 125—P’s history of eye treatment discoverable since relevant to cause of auto accident. It would be best to seek personal assistance from a lawyer in order to guide you with the personal injury case.
To read more, click here.