Melikov v. Ghilotti Bros., Inc.

Background

The case arose from a July 16, 2019 automobile accident in Golden Gate Park near Crossover Drive and Park Presidio Bypass in San Francisco. Ghilotti had placed a “CENTER LANE CLOSED AHEAD” sign before a lane closure, but the evidence indicated that construction occupied the left lane rather than the center lane. A temporary barrier, crash cushion, and “LANE CLOSED” sign were also present near the intersection.

Melikov alleged that he moved into the left lane because he expected the center lane to close. After discovering that concrete barriers blocked the left lane, he veered right and became lodged between another vehicle and the barrier, damaging his vehicle. Proceeding without a lawyer, he sued Ghilotti and alleged negligence and willful and wanton misconduct. He also sought punitive damages based on the latter claim.

Ghilotti moved for summary adjudication, a procedure allowing a court to resolve particular claims when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Applicable Law and Jurisdiction

The court held that the case was based on diversity jurisdiction and that California law governed the state-law personal-injury and property-injury claims. The court rejected Melikov’s attempt to rely on the Federal Highway Act and Highway Safety Act for federal-question jurisdiction, finding that those statutes did not create a private cause of action for his claims. The court also rejected reliance on Ghilotti’s contract with Caltrans as a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Willful and Wanton Misconduct

Under California law, willful or wanton misconduct requires more than a failure to use ordinary care. The court explained that it involves either an intent to harm or an active and conscious disregard of the consequences. The court identified three relevant elements: actual or constructive knowledge of the danger, actual or constructive knowledge that injury was probable rather than merely possible, and a conscious failure to act to avoid the danger.

The court found that Melikov had not offered evidence of Ghilotti’s intent to harm anyone or of an active disregard of the consequences. Although the sign was used inconsistently with its intended purpose, the evidence showed that Caltrans directed Ghilotti to use it. The court also found that Ghilotti used additional traffic-control measures, including a temporary barrier, crash cushion, and “LANE CLOSED” sign. In the court’s view, the evidence at most supported negligence, not willful or wanton misconduct. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find otherwise as a matter of law and granted Ghilotti’s motion on this claim.

Punitive Damages

California law permits punitive damages when clear and convincing evidence shows oppression, fraud, or malice. The court found that Melikov’s punitive-damages request was based solely on his willful-and-wanton-misconduct claim. Because the court found no triable issue on that claim, it held that the punitive-damages request also failed.

The court added that, even independently, Melikov had not offered clear and convincing evidence that Ghilotti engaged in malicious or despicable conduct or consciously disregarded safety risks. The court therefore granted Ghilotti’s motion as to punitive damages as well.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court granted Ghilotti’s motion for summary adjudication as to Melikov’s claim for willful and wanton misconduct and his request for punitive damages. The order required the parties to file a joint status report by June 17, 2022, and continued the pretrial conference to September 26, 2022, jury selection to October 12, 2022, and trial to October 17, 2022. The opinion does not state a disposition of Melikov’s negligence claim.