What is the test for foreseeability and duty of a police officer in a traffic collision?

Other cases relied on by petitioners are also inapposite. In Victor v. Hedges (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 229, the court concluded that being struck by an errant vehicle jumping a curb was not a foreseeable result of standing on a public sidewalk. (Id. at pp. 243-244.)

The court in Capolungo v. Bondi (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 346 did not discuss foreseeability and duty. Rather, the court held that a car parked in a loading zone for more than the legally permitted 24 minutes did not proximately cause the accident where a bicyclist had to swerve into traffic to avoid that car. (Id. at pp. 348, 355.)

Finally, the court in Schrimscher v. Bryson (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 660 relied primarily on policy considerations. There the plaintiff, a highway patrol officer, had stopped and arrested one drunk driver and was injured when hit by a second drunk driver. The court concluded the second drunk driver was an independent intervening act that broke the chain of causation because the conduct was "criminal in nature" and not a natural or ordinary consequence of the situation created by the first drunk driver. (Id. at pp. 664-665.) More importantly, the court held, "[i]t would be an unwarranted extension of liability to hold that when a traffic officer, who is issuing a citation, investigating an accident or performing other of his duties, is injured as a result of the negligence or criminal conduct of one person, liability may be imposed on the original traffic violator whose conduct brought the officer to the scene." (Id. at p. 665.)

3. The trial court's procedural error does not warrant writ relief.