Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV08291, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08291    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On March 3, 2021, Plaintiff Hector Aguinaga (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Kaiser Found. Hosp. (“KFH”), Kaiser Permanente Intl. (“KPI”) and Kaiser Permanente Baldwin Park (“KPBP”) for general negligence and premises liability.

On September 8, 2021, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Defendant”), on behalf of KFG and KPMP (“Defendant”) filed an answer. On April 11, 2022, the Court dismissed KPI, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On November 18, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on February 7, 2023.

Trial is scheduled for July 17, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

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

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

Overview

Plaintiff alleges that, while at Defendant’s subject premises, he slipped and fell on a wet or gel substance on the floor immediately adjacent to the women’s restrooms, causing his injuries.

Defendant’s Argument

For a premises owner to be liable for injuries suffered due to a defective condition on the premises, the premises owner either must have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Generally, this means either the condition existed long enough that the owner should have discovered it, or that the owner was informed of the dangerous condition.

Defendant first argues that the condition of the property created no unreasonable risk as the flooring in the area is tiled with minimally porous porcelain tiles that would have provided the necessary traction and stability for flooring as used in a medical center setting. However, the tiles utilized are not at issue here; it is the alleged puddle that is being proposed as the dangerous condition. 

Defendant argues that there was no actual notice of the alleged wet or gel substance. Plaintiff and a potentially a third-party bystander were the first individuals on notice; the next person, a security guard, to notice the condition only noticed it after the injury already occurred. Defendant is correct that there was no actual notice.

Defendant also argues that Defendant did not have constructive notice, as individual attendants and security guards were assigned to regularly patrol and clean the facility and to always be on the lookout for any dangerous conditions. Policy dictates that the area is to be inspected at least every 30 minutes. (SS 17.) The area where Defendant slipped is frequently walked, as it is a common place for foot traffic. In addition, an employee was assigned to clean the bathrooms directly adjacent to the fall only approximately 30 minutes prior to Plaintiff’s fall, meaning that Defendant should not have been on constructive notice as to the dangerous condition. (SS 24-25.) The subject area is also along the most direct route from the medical center to the security officers, and thus us used on an ongoing basis by security going to and from the medical center. All security personnel are trained to provide ongoing inspections of the area they control and are either to immediately clean up or report any dangerous conditions they survey. The area was even more trafficked than normal due to changes in hospital policy in reaction to COVID-19, as it was used as primary point of access for medical personnel and security. Therefore, realistically, the area in question would be subject to inspection no less than every 10 to 15 minutes.  The Court finds that Defendant was not on constructive notice as to the dangerous condition. The burden shifts to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals’ 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.