Filed 1/29/21 Pro Se v. City of Santa Monica CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on 

opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 

8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 

purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PRO SE,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,

Defendant and Respondent.

B296195

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC605644)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Frederick C. Shaller, Judge. Affirmed.

Pro Se, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

George S. Cardona, Interim City Attorney, Lance S. Gams, 

Chief Deputy City Attorney, Karen S. Duryea, Deputy City 

Attorney for Defendant and Respondent.

 ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳ ̳
2

Plaintiff Pro Se (plaintiff) appeals a judgment entered in 

favor of the City of Santa Monica (City) after a jury rejected 

plaintiff’s claims that he suffered personal injuries as a result of 

the negligence of a City employee. As we discuss, plaintiff 

forfeited all of his appellate arguments by failing to raise them 

below, and thus we affirm the judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2015, plaintiff, who suffers from a disability, 

was a passenger on a Big Blue Bus operated by the City. 

Plaintiff was seated in a wheelchair that was tethered to the floor 

of the bus with straps. As the bus traveled on Fourth Street in 

Santa Monica, the driver applied the brakes to avoid what he 

believed was a vehicle coming into his lane. Plaintiff claimed the 

bus’s abrupt stop caused him to be thrown from his wheelchair 

and to suffer injuries.

Plaintiff sued the City for general and motor vehicle 

negligence. The case was tried to a jury, which on July 16, 2018 

returned a special verdict for the City. The jury found that the 

City was negligent, but the City’s negligence was not a 

substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries. On January 22, 

2019, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the City and 

against plaintiff. Plaintiff timely appealed from the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends: (1) the trial court failed to offer him 

appropriate accommodations for his disability during trial; (2) the 

special verdict form was ambiguous and confusing to the jury; 

and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by seating juror 

number 6, who was biased against plaintiff. We consider each of 

these contentions below.
3

I.

Plaintiff Forfeited His Accommodation Claim 

by Failing to Raise it in the Trial Court

Plaintiff contends the court erred by failing to 

accommodate him during trial as required by the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C., § 12101 et seq.). Specifically, plaintiff 

says the trial court required him to sit 150 feet away from a 

monitor where video evidence was played for the jury. As a 

result, plaintiff says, he was unable to view the video evidence, 

which he urges affected the outcome of the trial.

We conclude that plaintiff forfeited this claim of error by 

failing to raise it below. “As a general rule, a [party’s] failure to 

object to an alleged trial error relieves an appellate court of the 

obligation to consider the claim on review. [Citation.] The 

reason for this rule is to allow the trial court to correct its errors 

and ‘to prevent gamesmanship . . . .’ ” (People v. Arredondo

(2019) 8 Cal.5th 694, 710; see also People v. Romero (2008) 

44 Cal.4th 386, 411 [same].)

In the present case, it is undisputed that plaintiff did not 

object at trial to his placement in the courtroom, nor did he 

indicate to the court that he had any difficulty seeing the video 

evidence.1 Had he done so, the court would have had the 

opportunity to correct any error by allowing plaintiff to be seated 

elsewhere in the courtroom. Because plaintiff did not object, he 

has forfeited his claim.

1 To the contrary, his trial testimony suggested that he was 

able to see the video evidence.
4

II.

Plaintiff Forfeited His Objection 

to the Special Verdict Form

Plaintiff next contends the judgment should be reversed 

because the second question on the special verdict form—“Was 

City of Santa Monica’s negligence a substantial factor in causing 

harm to Plaintiff Pro Se?”—confused at least one juror. 

To the extent plaintiff is contending that the special verdict 

form was faulty, that contention was forfeited by his failure to 

object at trial. “A party who fails to object to a special verdict 

form ordinarily waives any objection to the form.” (Behr v. 

Redmond (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 517, 530; Jensen v. BMW of 

North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 131.) In the 

present case, plaintiff does not establish by a citation to the 

appellate record that he or his counsel objected to the special 

verdict form he now contends was ambiguous. The alleged 

ambiguity in the verdict form therefore has been forfeited.

III.

Plaintiff Forfeited His Objection to Juror Number 6

Finally, plaintiff contends the trial court erred in seating 

juror number 6. He contends that juror number 6 was “a 

government employee for Medicare and Social Security” whose 

presence on the jury “adversely poisoned the jury by having . . . 

the presiding juror influence the jury to vote her way in favor 

after Financial interest [sic] that would benefit her employer 

Medicare/Social Security.” 

We conclude that this claim of error, like the others

plaintiff has asserted, has been forfeited because plaintiff did not 

raise it below. “Absent a challenge [to a juror] for cause, the 

issue is not preserved.” (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 
5

1160; see also People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1242 

[because defendant did not object to juror in the trial court, his 

contention that the trial court erred in failing to discharge the 

juror was forfeited].) Here, plaintiff does not contend that he

made a timely objection in the trial court to juror number 6. 

Accordingly, the objection has been forfeited.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The City is awarded its 

appellate costs.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL 

REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

EGERTON, J.

DHANIDINA, J.