Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 22SMCV02594, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV02594, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02594 Hearing Date: February 21, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Rad v. Mirama Enterprises, Inc., Case no. 22SMCV02594

Hearing date February 21, 2025

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Rad sues defendants Mirama Enterprises, Inc. and Amazon.com, LLC for injuries sustained while using an electric kettle purchased from defendants. Defendants move for summary judgment as to products liability and negligence claims.

Defendants object to the declarations of plaintiff’s counsel Garcia and plaintiff’s mother Khorram. Defendants offer 8 evidentiary objections to Garcia’s declaration; objection 1, 3-4 SUSTAINED (irrelevant, hearsay, lack of foundation, lack of personal knowledge), objections 2, 5-8 OVERRULED. Defendants offer 6 evidentiary objections to Khorram’s declaration; objection 1 SUSTAINED (hearsay), objections 2-6 OVERRULED.

Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(a)(1) a party may move for summary judgment if it is contended the action has no merit. Pursuant to §437c(f)(1) a court may summarily adjudicate causes of action. A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if there is no triable issue of material fact, and the record establishes as a matter of law, plaintiff cannot prevail on a cause of action. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c). A defendant has met its burden of showing a cause of action has no merit it shows one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once defendant met its burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).

In a products liability action, plaintiff must prove: (1) the product was defective; (2) the defect existed when the product left the hands of the manufacturer; and (3) proximate cause. CACI 1201, 1203, & 1205; Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725. This burden applies whether plaintiff proceeds under a strict liability or negligence theory. Moreno v. Sayre (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 116, 124.

Plaintiff asserts the kettle was defective because the screws attaching the handle to the kettle were prone to falling out.

Defense manufacturing engineer and consultant Read examined the kettle and an exemplar. SSMF 8-9. Read found the kettle had no damage to its body and was in operating condition. SSMF 10. Defendants assert even if the screws fell out, the handle would have remained attached to the kettle due to its design. SSMF 12, 15. This is sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff.

Plaintiff argues one of the screws attaching the handle to the kettle was rusty, and the handle detached mid-use, as shown in photos taken by plaintiff’s mother after the incident. SSMF 12. Plaintiff argues defendants had notice and complaints from other customers alleging the screws fell out. Id. Defendants argue the reports from other customers arose after plaintiff’s injuries so cannot establish notice. Per Daly, supra, all plaintiff needs to show is that a defect existed at the time defendants surrendered control of the kettle. A triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the kettle was defective.

Defendants argue plaintiff cannot show proximate cause. Defendants assert plaintiff unforeseeably misused the kettle by placing a second, smaller glass tea kettle on top of the electric kettle to steep tea. SSMF 19-20. Product misuse is a complete defense to both strict and negligent product liability causes of action where plaintiff’s misuse “was so unforeseeable that it should be deemed the sole or superseding cause” of the plaintiff’s harm. Perez v. VAS S.p.A. (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 658, 685. The kettle came with a user manual specifying not to remove the lid during use due to risk of burns. SSMF 5-7, 11-12.

Plaintiff testified at deposition she would not attach the kettle’s lid, instead placing the teapot over the opening. SSMF 6. Defendants argue using the kettle without its lid despite warning and placing a teapot over the kettle constitute unforeseeable misuse. This is sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff.

Plaintiff argues she did not lift or use the kettle while the teapot was sitting on it. SSAMF 4. Plaintiff asserts she was pouring water from the kettle when the handle detached, with nothing on top of the kettle or attached to it. SSAMF 6. Plaintiff asserts the lid was not on the kettle, but argues such misuse was foreseeable as evidenced by defendants’ warnings and does not bar recovery. Id.; See Lugo v. LJN Toys, Inc. (1988) 146 Cal.App.3d 97, 108. Pouring water is an intended use of the kettle, and it is foreseeable that consumers might use the kettle without its lid. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the alleged defect or plaintiff’s alleged misuse was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.

Defendants argue even if the kettle was defective, plaintiff failed to prevent spoilation of the evidence, necessitating summary judgment. Spoliation of evidence is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence, in pending or future litigation. Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP (9th Cir. 2009) 590 F.3d 638 (applying California law).

Following plaintiff’s injuries, third party “Majid” reattached the handle and screws to the kettle. Decl. Amin exh. 2; SSMF 13. Read noted the refitment of the handle and screws. Decl. Read para. 13-14. Defendants argue plaintiff cannot prove the existence of a defect or that such defect caused her injuries due to the “fix.”

Plaintiff points to post-incident pictures of the kettle with the handle detached. Spoliation can justify evidentiary sanctions but does not automatically bar a claims or warrant summary judgment unless the spoliation was willful or in bad faith and substantially prejudiced the opposing party’s ability to defend itself. Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.

Defendants examined the kettle and, by their own argument, are benefitted, not prejudiced, by the alleged spoilation. Spoilation is not grounds for summary judgment but the court will consider whether a CACI 204 instruction is appropriate.

Motion DENIED.