Judge: Eddie C. Sturgeon, Case: 37-2022-00038785-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 17, 2023

08/18/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Eddie C Sturgeon

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Auto Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00038785-CU-PA-CTL AGIY VS PILGER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 04/06/2023

Defendants Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC's Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the second, third, and fourth causes of action. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is denied.

A demurrer may be sustained upon defects that appear on the face of the pleading or any matter of which the court takes judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30.) Courts 'treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law.' (Sarale v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 225, 245.) A demurrer may be sustained where the pleading 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 430.10(e).) A manufacturer or retailer may be held strictly liable for placing a defective product on the market if the plaintiff's injury results from a reasonably foreseeable use of the product. (Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1302.) The reasonably foreseeable use requirement applies to all three products liability claims at issue here. '[F]oreseeability is a question for the jury unless undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion.' (Chavez, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at 1302 [quoting Torres v. Xomox Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1, 19[.) Recent case law has established that Amazon may be sued for products liability for products sold on their website or delivered through their network. In Loomis v. Amazon.com LLC (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 466, the Second District Court of Appeal found that Amazon could be strictly liable for defects in a hoverboard sold by a third-party seller through the Amazon website. In Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Amazon could be strictly liable when a consumer suffered burns from a laptop battery purchased from a third party seller on Amazon's website. The Bolger court held Amazon 'is an 'integral part of the overall producing and marketing enterprise that should bear the cost of injuries resulting from defective products.'' (Id. at 453.) In both Loomis and Bolger, the injuries were directly sustained from a reasonably foreseeable use of the product by the consumer.

Here, in demurring to all three products liability causes of action, Defendants argue (1) the injury was caused by the delivery van, not the allegedly defective product; and (2) the complained of injury did not result from a reasonably foreseeable use of the product.

Plaintiff responds (1) Defendants can be held liable for injuries caused by products sold on their website as demonstrated by Loomis and Bolger; (2) injuries sustained by bystanders such as Plaintiff can be Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2959961  12 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  AGIY VS PILGER [IMAGED]  37-2022-00038785-CU-PA-CTL reasonably foreseeable; and in any case (3) reasonable foreseeability is an issue for the trier of fact.

Whether Defendant can be held liable for injuries caused by products sold on its website is undisputed for purposes of this demurrer. But Plaintiff was not injured by the foreseeable use of the allegedly defective product. Rather, Plaintiff claims that the defective product cut the driver's hand and caused the delivery driver to panic, which then resulted in his hitting Plaintiff with the delivery van. That causal chain distinguishes the case from the facts of either Loomis or Bolger.

Additionally, while bystanders may be foreseeably harmed for purposes of strict liability, all the cases cited by Plaintiff include instances where the Plaintiff was actually harmed by the reasonably foreseeable use of the complained of product. For example, in Barker v. Lull Eng'g Co. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 413 a defective high-lift loader dropped lumber onto a bystander. In Foglio v. W. Auto Supply (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 470, a bystander plaintiff brought a claim when a projectile was discharged from a lawn mower. In Elmore v. Am. Motors Corp. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 578, 586, the courts found that both passengers and other drivers/pedestrians could bring products liability claims for injuries sustained from defective vehicles. In all of these cases, the reasonably foreseeable use of the defective products was the cause of the injury. Here, the allegedly defective knife cut a delivery driver's hand and then that driver drove for a approximately a mile before hitting Plaintiff. That injury was not incurred by the reasonably foreseeable use of the knife.

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the second, third, and fourth causes of action.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2959961  12