Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV31681, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31681 Hearing Date: August 30, 2022 Dept: 28
Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2021, Planintiff Naoimh Nelson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Aaron Irmas (“Irmas”) for negligence and negligence per se.
On February 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed the FAC, adding Defendant Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) and causes of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability, motor vehicle negligence and negligence.
On March 11, 2022, Irmas filed an answer.
On May 18, 2022, Tesla filed a demurrer to be heard on August 30, 2022. On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply. On August 23, 2022, Tesla filed a reply.
Trial is scheduled for February 23, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Tesla requests the Court sustain the demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action on the basis that there are no facts alleging Tesla owned or operated the subject vehicle.
Plaintiff requests the Court over
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that Irmas struck Plaintiff with his vehicle when Plaintiff was travelling in a pedestrian crosswalk. Plaintiff specifically alleges that Aaron had the car, which was made by Tesla, in “auto pilot mode,” which failed to stop at the marked limit line. In addition to causes of action for products liability against Tesla, Plaintiff also has causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and negligence against all Defendants for negligently operating the subject car.
Tesla argues that merely articulating a vehicle is self-driving is insufficient to establish the creator of said vehicle as the driver, owner or operator of said vehicle. Plaintiff’s factual basis for bringing the third and fourth causes of action against Tesla are all based on the auto-pilot features available within the car. It is never claims that Tesla, or a Tesla employee within the course of their work for Tesla, are actually driving the cars. This applies also to autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles. Under Vehicle Code §38750(a)(4), the “’operator’ of an autonomous vehicle is the person who is seated in the driver’s seat, or, if there is no person in the driver’s seat, causes the autonomous technology to engage.” As such, the facts alleged do not provide sufficient facts to assert motor vehicle negligence and negligence (based upon a failure to drive safely) against Tesla. Tesla has met its burden which now shifts to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff argues that Tesla’s product effectively takes over when the auto-pilot functionality is engaged, and thus should count as operating or driving the vehicle. Plaintiff cites to portion of the vehicle code that discuss the involvement of a corporate party to a lawsuit—however, in the case of motor vehicle negligence, the inclusion of a corporation is generally derived from vicarious liability. As addressed above, Plaintiff does not allege that Irmas was an agent or employee of Tesla. Plaintiff provided no cases or statutes that provide an autonomous vehicle can be considered a “driver,” instead relying upon Tesla’s marketing promoting it as such. This is insufficient to meet the heightened burden. As such, Plaintiff has not met her burden. The Court sustains the demurrer.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED, with 30 days leave to amend.
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.