Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

November 10, 2005 Issue   By: Mark Hazelwood

Torts - Federal Standard Requires Commercial Driver To Use Extreme Caution

Weaver v. Chavez

Court of Appeal, Second District

 (November 7, 2025)

The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act was passed by Congress to promote the safe operation of commercial vehicles and to ensure compliance with safety regulations promulgated under the Act.  Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations, part 392.14, the driver of a commercial vehicle is to use extreme caution and to reduce speed when hazardous conditions exist.  In this case, the question was whether this particular Federal regulation preempts California law. 

On December 21, 2001, Plaintiff Linda Weaver was driving her automobile eastbound on the 210 Freeway in Los Angeles.  Traffic conditions were moderate to heavy and it was raining.  As Weaver passed an on-ramp, a car driven by Gomez entered the freeway at a high rate of speed.  Gomez lost control, and spun into Weaver’s car, knocking it into the third lane of traffic, where it came to rest.

Defendant Frank Chavez, a commercial truck driver working for Defendant Villa Park Trucking, Inc., was also driving eastbound on the 210 Freeway.  When Weaver’s car spun out and came to rest, it stopped approximately 120 feet ahead of Chavez.  Chavez applied his brakes, but could not stop before striking Weaver’s vehicle.  Weaver sustained severe injuries.

Weaver filed suit against Gomez, Chavez and Villa Park   Gomez was dismissed prior to trial.  At trial, Chavez admitted that he was traveling at 56 miles per hour and was going too fast for conditions.  Weaver requested that the jury be instructed that Chavez had a duty to use “extreme caution,” pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 392.14.  Chavez and Villa Park objected to the proposed jury instruction on several grounds.  The trial court refused Weaver’s request.  Instead, the trial court instructed the jury utilizing standard California negligence and negligence per se instructions.  In particular, the jury was instructed that negligence is the failure to “use reasonable care.”  Further, the jury was instructed that the basic speed law of California (Vehicle Code section 22350) provides that “no person shall drive upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather. . .”

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Chavez and Villa Park.  Weaver appealed, arguing that the jury was wrongly instructed on the duty of Chavez to operate a commercial motor vehicle.  The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court, concluding that the instructions given to the jury constituted prejudicial error. 

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not generally preempt state laws and regulations.  However, the Act does state: “if a Federal regulation . . . imposes a higher standard of care than the state law . . . the regulation must be complied with.”  In comparing the standard of diligence between the Federal and California instructions, the Court concluded that the state’s basic speed law required only that a driver not drive at a speed “greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather.”   The Federal standard requires the commercial driver to use “extreme caution” and to reduce speed when hazardous conditions exist.  While reasonable care equates to “ordinary prudence,” extreme has been defined as “greatest, highest, strongest.”  The Court of Appeal found that the Federal regulation imposes a higher standard of care.

The Court further determined that there was substantial evidence that hazardous conditions existed at the time of the accident, and that Weaver was prejudiced by the trial judge not giving the Federal instruction to the jury.  The Court ruled that if the jury had measured the actions of Chavez under the heightened standard of care, there might well have been a different verdict.   The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and the case was remanded for a new trial.

COMMENT

49 C.F.R. 392.14 requires “extreme caution” in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle during inclement weather.  This case significantly holds that if  hazardous conditions exist, it is reversible error for a court not to give a negligence per se instruction based on 49 C.F.R. 392.14.  California’s basic speed law under Vehicle Code section 22350 is insufficient.                  

____
To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission. Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.