Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV09176, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV09176    Hearing Date: August 8, 2024    Dept: 14

#12

Case Background

This is an action for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants negligently owned the premises at or near CLA Go. Inc. Lot-Dot Mangrove at East Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. Specifically, Plaintiff was walking when she tripped and fell on uneven metal plates on the ground.

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff Clara Lee filed her Complaint against Defendants County of Los Angeles (County), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Skanska USA Civil West California District, Inc. (Skanska), and Traylor Bros., Inc. (Traylor Bros).

On May 17, 2024, County filed an Answer.

On May 30, 2024, Skanska USA Civil West California District, Inc. filed a demurrer.

On June 11, 2024, Traylor Bros filed its demurrer.

On June 13, 2024, MTA filed this demurrer.

On July 9, Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition to the demurrers filed by Skanska, Traylor Bros, and MTA.

On August 1, 2024, MTA filed a reply.

Instant Pleading

MTA demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that it does not sufficiently allege a cause of action against it.

Decision

MTA’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

MTA’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Discussion

MTA demurs to the causes of action for negligence and premises liability on the grounds that (1) the Complaint does not allege that MTA owed Plaintiff a duty of care or how the duty was breached and (2) the Complaint does not allege causation. MTA also alleges the Complaint is uncertain on its face. The demurrer is substantially the same as earlier demurrers filed by Defendants Skanska and Traylor Bros. Therefore, the analysis is the same as the Court’s analysis for those demurrers.

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.  (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.) If a dangerous condition exists, the property owner is “under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for [customers’] their use or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm.” (Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 446.) The existence and scope of a property owner’s duty are legal questions for the court. (Annocki, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th  at p. 36.) 

Civ. Code, section 1714(a) provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also 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, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.

Here, the Complaint alleges that all Defendants, including MTA, owned, managed, maintained, or operated the subject property located at or near Justin Ct. and CLA Gov. Inc., Lot-Dot Mangrove, East Temple St. Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Compl., pp.5, 7.) The Complaint also alleges that Defendants were negligent because metal plates existed on the premises which caused Plaintiff to trip and fall. (Id.) Defendants knew the condition existed and failed to barricade the area, warn of the condition, or adequately light the area. (Id.)

Because the Complaint alleges all Defendants, including MTA, owned the subject property, the Complaint adequately alleges that MTA owed a duty of ordinary care to manage its property to avoid injury to Plaintiff.

The Complaint also adequately alleges breach of this duty because it alleges MTA’s employees knew of the uneven plates and failed to warn of its existence, barricade the area, or adequately light the area.

Finally, the Complaint adequately alleges that Defendants’ breach caused Plaintiff’s injuries because it alleges Plaintiff tripped and fell as a result of Defendants’ failure to address the dangerous condition.

Because the Complaint adequately alleges facts which support each element of negligence, the demurrer is overruled.

Uncertainty

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) “A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her.” (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) § 7:85 (emphasis in original).) “The objection of uncertainty does not go to the failure to allege sufficient facts.” (Brea v. McGlashan (1934) 3 Cal.App.2d 454, 459.) “It goes to the doubt as to what the pleader means by the facts alleged.” (Id.) “Such a demurrer should not be sustained where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet.” (People v. Lim (1941) 18 Cal.2d 872, 882.)  

Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff tripped on uneven metal plates on property owned by all Defendants, including Traylor Bros. Plaintiff alleges that the area was located at or near Justin Ct. and CLA Gov. Inc., Lot-Dot Mangrove at East Temple St. Los Angeles, CA 90012. The Court finds this approximation is sufficient to put Defendants on notice of the location of the incident, and that these facts are sufficient to apprise Traylor Bros. of the issues it is to meet so that they may respond. The demurrer is OVERRULED on this ground.
Defendant is to file an answer within 10 days of notice of the Court's ruling.