Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV10450, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10450    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendants Target Corporation and Specialized Elevator Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff Theresa Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Target Corporation (“Target”) Specialized Elevator Services, LLC (“SEC LLC”) and Specialized Elevator Corporation (“SEC”) for general negligence and premises liability.

On March 3, 2020, Target and SEC (“Defendants”) filed an answer.

On December 8, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on August 30, 2022. On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 25, 2022, Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for October 4, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court grant summary judgment on the basis that there is no dispute as to material facts.

OBJECTIONS

Defendants’ objections:

Sustained: 1, 2

Overruled: 3, 4, 5, 6

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP § 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”  (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) 

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

“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.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159.)

A land possessor does not have a duty to warn an invitee of obvious dangers but does have a duty to warn about dangerous conditions known to the possessor and those that might have been found by exercise of ordinary care. (Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 20, 27.) Obvious dangerous are those that which that an invitee will perceive “that which would be obvious to him through the ordinary use of his senses.” Id. A land possessor is not liable for damages caused “by a minor, trivial, or insignificant defect in property.” (Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 922, 927.)

According to Dolquist v. City of Bellflower (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 261, 267-268, when determining if a risk if trivial, courts look to a multitude of factors beyond just depth or height of a sidewalk fault. For example, courts may look towards physical characteristics (such as exposed rebar or broken pieces), visibility, and history (such as whether anyone else has been injured). 

A customer injured by a dangerous condition on a premises owners' property can only recover damages against the owner of a premises if the owner was somehow negligent. (Louie v. Hagstrom's Food Stores, Inc. (1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 601.) A premises owner's negligence may be proven by showing that the owner did not “exercise reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe for patrons” (Peralta v. Vons Companies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1035), either because (1) the owner itself created a dangerous condition on the premises (Henderson v. Progressive Optical System (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 180, 184), or (2) someone else created a dangerous condition, and the owner acted unreasonably by not remedying that condition or warning its customers about it (Girvetz v. Boys' Market (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 827, 829) “Absent any evidence that there was a … dangerous condition created by or known to [defendant], [plaintiffs] cannot sustain their burden of proof” so as to defeat a defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Peralta v. The Vons Companies, Inc., (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1036.) A store owner must have actual or constructive notice of the condition to be negligent; it cannot have merely existed. (Id.)

DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

The Court takes judicial notice of the requested documents pursuant to California Evidence Code §452(d).

Overview

Plaintiff alleges that, while at Target’s subject premises, she ran up the descending escalator, lost her balance, and fell. (SSUF3-9.) The descending escalator was properly functioning and properly maintained at the time of the incident. (SSUF 9, 11-12.)

Both premises liability and negligence require a breach of duty in order for a defendant to be found liable. Here, there is no indication of breach of duty. The escalator was working properly—there are no facts provided that show any dangerous conditions that Defendants did or should have had knowledge about. Case law supports the contention that a properly working and maintained escalator, in the absence of other facts, is not considered to be a dangerous condition. (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 755, 756.) As there is no breach via dangerous condition, Defendants have met their burden of showing Plaintiff cannot show evidentiary support for her pleading. The burden shifts to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff does not dispute that the descending escalator was functioning properly and that other guests rode the escalator safely. (SSUF 12.) Instead, Plaintiff focuses on the parallel cart conveyor, an escalator that only delivered shopping carts to the lower level. Plaintiff specifically alleges that Target failed to clean the cart conveyor, resulting in her shopping cart getting stuck in the cart conveyor. (SSUF 7.) She states that she ran up the descending escalator to press the emergency stop button because she was afraid of someone getting hurt. (SSUF 11.) However, this argument does nothing to establish breach or causation.

First, the Court notes, that a potential breach of an entirely different escalator is unrelated to Plaintiff’s damages. The cart conveyor was completely disconnected from the pedestrian escalator and no potential malfunction would have caused an injury that occurred on the pedestrian escalator. Thus, there is no relevant breach here. If a mere breach of duty anywhere on the subject premises was enough to provide liability, stores would be unable to effectively operate due to the onslaught of litigation. In order for the alleged cart conveyor malfunction to be a relevant breach of duty, Plaintiff’s injury would have had to directly stemmed from the conveyor. For example, if one of the products from her cart flew onto the subject escalator, injuring her, Defendants would be liable. However, Plaintiff does not allege her injury is directly derived from the cart conveyor, but rather because she ran to prevent potential injury.

Additionally, the Court finds there is absolutely not causation between the two. Plaintiff made the conscious choice to walk up a functioning, descending escalator in order to prevent a potential mishap that she had no obligation to prevent. Neither Defendant made Plaintiff act in such an unreasonable and unintended manner—Plaintiff chose to do so. As Plaintiff has provided no evidence of a related breach or any form of causation, the Court grants summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Target Corporation and Specialized Elevator Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.