Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 24STCV00676, Date: 2024-06-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00676    Hearing Date: June 26, 2024    Dept: 76

            Plaintiff alleges that she was accidentally hit by an employee while in Defendant’s store due to unsafe flooring.

Defendant Trader Joe’s Company demurs to the Complaint and moves to strike portions thereof.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Trader Joe’s Company’s demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the first and second causes of action.

            Plaintiff is given 30 days’ leave to amend.

ANALYSIS

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Kristin A. Mathis indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts. This satisfies Civ. Proc. Code, § 430.41(a)(3)(B).

Discussion

Defendant Trader Joe’s Company demurs to the Complaint as follows:

1.         First Cause of Action (General Negligence) and Second Cause of Action (Premises Liability).

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not even identify the Trader Joe’s store where she was injured, nor the manner in which she was injured. Defendant argues that the second cause of action is duplicative of the first cause of action and does not identify the dangerous condition.

The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. (Citations omitted.) Premises liability “‘is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises’”; accordingly, “‘mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.’” (Citations omitted.) But the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that applies in negligence cases. (Rowland, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 119 [“The proper test to be applied to the liability of the possessor of land … is whether in the management of his property he has acted as a reasonable man in view of the probability of injury to others … .”]; accord, Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1156 [60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 448, 929 P.2d 1239].) In determining whether a premises owner owes a duty to persons on its property, we apply [* 1159 the Rowland factors. (See, e.g., Thai v. Stang (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1264, 1271 [263 Cal. Rptr. 202] [Rowland analysis applies to premises liability cases].) Indeed, Rowland itself involved premises liability. (Rowland, at p. 110.)

We have never held that the physical or spatial boundaries of a property define the scope of a landowner's liability. The Courts of Appeal have repeatedly concluded that “‘[a] landowner's duty of care to avoid exposing others to a risk of injury is not limited to injuries that occur on premises owned or controlled by the landowner.’” (Garcia v. Paramount Citrus Assn., Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1453 [80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 512]; see Barnes v. Black (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1478 [84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 634] (Barnes); McDaniel v. Sunset Manor Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1, 7–8 [269 Cal. Rptr. 196] (McDaniel).) “Rather, the duty of care encompasses a duty to avoid exposing persons to risks of injury that occur off site if the landowner's property is maintained in such a manner as to expose persons to an unreasonable risk of injury offsite.” (Barnes, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1478; see Davert v. Larson (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 407, 410 [209 Cal. Rptr. 445] [“A landowner or possessor owes a duty of care to persons who come on his property as well as to persons off the property for injuries due to the landowner's lack of due care in the management of his property.”].)

     (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158-59.)

Generally speaking, actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition—which can be inferred from control of the property—is required in order to impose premises liability.  (Getchell v. Rogers Jewelry (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 381, 385-87.)  A possessor of land owes a duty to maintain land in its possession and control in a reasonably safe condition. (Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1155-66.)

Here, as pointed out by Defendant, Plaintiff does not even identify the Trader Joe’s store where the incident occurred, which is the bare minimum that must be alleged. Further, Plaintiff must allege what the Trader Joe’s employee did that caused Plaintiff injury and what unsafe floor condition existed. There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s lawyer to hide the ball in this manner.

The demurrer to the first and second causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

            Plaintiff is given 30 days’ leave to amend.

Motion To Strike

            Given the ruling on the demurrer, the motion to strike is MOOT.