Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV15807, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV15807 Hearing Date: October 25, 2022 Dept: 28
Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. Plaintiff filed notice of non-opposition to Defendant Landscape Structures Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.
BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2021, plaintiff Mark-Anthony Rodriguez, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Eddy Rodriguez (Plaintiff) filed his complaint against defendants Landscape Structures Inc. (LSI or Defendant) and Vido Samarzich Inc. (Samarzich) for strict products liability and negligence. Plaintiff alleges that he hit his head on the underside of a ramp component of one of the play structures, resulting in a cut to his head. This equipment, PlayBooster Ramp Item # 111342A, was designed and manufactured by Defendant and sold to Samarzich for installation at a public playground, pursuant to a contract entered into between Samarzich and defendant City of Pasadena. On December 2, 2021, Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, denying Plaintiff’s allegations against it. (Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) ¶ 2; Exh. B.) On April 11, 2022, the Court issued an order deeming the instant action related to the case captioned, Mark-Anthony Rodriguez, et al. v. City of Pasadena, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV15807, which Plaintiff filed against the City only, arising out of Plaintiff’s same injury at Victory Park on May 8, 2019. (RJN ¶¶ 3-4; Exhs. C-D; Scott Decl. 14.)
In its October 10, 2022 minute order, the Court, on its own motion, rescheduled Defendant Landscape Structures, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on April 29, 2022 in case 21STCV33701 to October 25, 2022, at 1:30 pm, in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse with the motion being heard under the lead case, 20STCV15807.
Trial is set for March 13, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant moves the Court for an order granting summary judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, or in the alternative for an order granting summary adjudication as to any one or more issues set forth below, and dismissing the associated causes of action with prejudice:
1. Issue 1 - Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Design Defect Under the Consumer
Expectation Test.
2. Issue 2 - Plaintiff Cannot Establish a Design Defect Under the Consumer
Expectation Test Under the Risk-Benefit Test.
3. Issue 3 - The Subject Ramp’s Warnings Were Adequate and in Compliance with
Applicable Standards.
4. Issue 4 – The Subject Ramp was ASTM and CPSC Compliant at the Time of
Shipment.
5. Issue 6 – The Subject Ramp was Open and Obvious.
6. Issue 6 – The Lack of Adult Supervision or Plaintiff’s Inattention Caused His
Accident.
Defendant also requests judicial notice of (1) the operative complaint filed by Plaintiff on September 13, 2021; (2) Defendant’s answer to Plaintiff’s complaint filed on December 2, 2020; (3) The Court’s Order Re: Notice or Related Case, entered on April 11, 2022 for case numbers 20STCV15807 and 21STCV33701; and (4) the operative first amended complaint filed by Plaintiff on April 30, 2020 in the related action 20STCV15807.
LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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.)
“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) “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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)
“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Strict Products Liability
A prima facie case of strict product liability requires plaintiff to demonstrate that: (1) the product was placed on the market; (2) there was knowledge that it would be used without inspection for defect; (3) the product proves to be defective; and (4) the defect causes injury to a human. (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57, 62; County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318 [elements of strict liability]; see also Arriaga v. CitiCapital Commercial Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1527, 1534-1535 (potentially liable parties include manufacturers marketing products while knowing they are used without inspection for defects causing injuries, retailers, lessors, distributors, licensors, and anyone identifiable as “‘an integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise’….”].) A product may be “defective” because of a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or a warning defect. (O’Neil v. Crane Co. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 335, 347; Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1110; Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057; and CACI 1200.)
Although “perfectly” manufactured, a product may nonetheless be legally defective because of a flaw in design (e.g., missing a safety device). (Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413, 429; Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.3d at 1057.) Design defect strict liability may be established under two alternative tests: the consumer expectation and risk-benefit tests. The “consumer expectation” test is based upon the failure of a product to perform as safely as an ordinary customer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. The “risk-benefit” test is used where the inherent dangers of the product outweigh the benefits.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant is liable under strict products liability for the defective Ramp which “contained a part that was not properly secured or child proofed, even though the product was marketed for children” and because Defendant “failed to warn of the dangerous conditions of the subject play structure.” (Undisputed Material Facts 70.)
Defendant claims Plaintiff cannot establish a design defect under the consumer expectation test nor the risk benefit test. Defendant argues the Ramp functioned as an ordinary person would expect because it was designed and manufactured in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards and CPSC guidelines governing the safe design of playground equipment for children. (UMF 12, 17, 24.) Defendant’s compliance was reasonable because the standards and guidelines it used were codified into California law pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 115725. (UMF 12; Health & Safety Code, ¶ 115725.). Defendant also argues that the circumstances of Plaintiff’s accident were not reasonably foreseeable to Defendant when it designed the Ramp because there were no prior similar reported complaints or accidents since the Ramp’s installation at Victory Park and Plaintiff himself had successfully run under the bridge at least a hundred times without hitting his head. (UMF 43-46.).
Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot establish that any alleged risks outweigh the benefits of the design of the Ramp because there were several safety features built into the design of the Ramp in compliance with ADA regulations, ASTM standards, and CSPSC guidelines. (UMF 7, 16.). Defendant claims the benefits of the Ramp design include assisting children ages 5 through 12 years old in developing motor, cognitive, and social/emotional skills. Defendant notes that Plaintiff fails to allege an alternative design for the Ramp. (RJN ¶ 1; Exh. A.)
Finally, Defendant claims the Ramp’s warnings were adequate and in compliance with applicable standards because it shipped a “Welcome” sign to be installed at the entrance of the playground which stated: “This play area has been designed for children 5-12 years of age. Adult supervision is recommended.” (UMF 22.). Defendant also points to other labels such as “Play It Safe!” (UMF 22.). Defendant notes there is no evidence indicating any of these signs were absent at the subject playground on the date of Plaintiff’s incident. (UMF 35, 38.) Defendant argues it was not required to have a warning that advised children of the dangers of running under a bridge or ramp since there was no ASTM standard or CPSC guideline requiring such a warning at the time Defendant shipped the Ramp nor any requirement under the Health & Safety Code. (UMF 16, 24-25.).
The Court agrees with Defendant’s arguments and given that Plaintiff has not offered any opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim for strict products liability as to Defendant fails as a matter of law and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to strict products liability.
Negligence
To prevail in a negligence action, a plaintiff must show that there was (1) a legal duty owed to plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318; Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917; McGarry v. Sax (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 983, 994 [focusing on duty to avoid causing unreasonable risk of injury in Civil Code §1714]; see also Federico v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1214 [“Generally, whether a defendant was negligent constitutes a question of fact for the jury…. However, where reasonable jurors could draw only one conclusion from the evidence presented, lack of negligence may be determined as a matter of law, and summary judgment granted].)
Plaintiff alleges Defendant had a duty of reasonable care to all potential purchasers and/or users of its products to, inter alia, properly design, manufacture, and warn, with regard to the subject play structure. (UMF 71.) Plaintiff further alleges LSI negligently failed to, inter alia, properly design, manufacture, and warn, with respect to the defects in the subject play structure.” (UMF 71.)
Defendant claims the Ramp design was ASTM and CPSC compliant since its first release in 1994 and its shipment for installation at Victory Park. (UMF 12, 17, 24.). Defendant also claims it complied with the Health & Safety Code section 115725 at the time of shipment and the compliance was further confirmed by the City’s inspection months leading up to the incident and after the incident. (UMF 34-36, 39.).
Defendant argues there is no evidence that there was any kind of hidden or concealed danger to Plaintiff at the time of the incident since Plaintiff had run under the Ramp multiple times without incident, he was not aware of any other person hitting their head under the Ramp prior to the incident, and Plaintiff’s father had seen other children run under the Ramp and never advised Plaintiff to not run under the Ramp prior to the incident. (UMF 43-51, 56.) Thus, Defendant claims Plaintiff cannot establish that any condition of the Ramp was not open and obvious.
Defendant argues the sole cause of Plaintiff’s accident was the lack of adult supervision and/or his own inattention since Plaintiff was readily aware of the Ramp’s function, Plaintiff never hit his head despite running under the Ramp on many occasions prior to the incident, and there is no evidence that the Ramp had any broken components at the time of the incident. (UMF 32, 35, 38-39, 43, 45-47, 68.)
The Court agrees with Defendant’s arguments and finds that Defendant did not breach its duty since it complied with all laws, rules, or regulations at the time of the Ramp’s release, shipment, and inspection. The Court also finds that the nature of the Ramp was open and obvious and there is insufficient evidence to support that Defendant’s negligence was the legal cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his claim of negligence against Defendant as a matter of law and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to negligence.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendant Landscape Structures Inc. is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Defendant Landscape Structures Inc. 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.