Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV05217, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05217    Hearing Date: May 21, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Oscar Martinez v. Geoffrey Palmer, et al., Case No. 23SMCV05217

Hearing date May 21, 2024 

Defendants Palmer & Lin’s Demurrer to Complaint 

Plaintiff Martinez alleges he was injured at defendants’ home when large, heavy pieces of glass he was unloading fell on him. Defendants demur to the first and second causes of action for negligence and premises liability.

Negligence

The elements for a cause of action negligence are: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318. In California, negligence may be pleaded in general terms. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 407-408.

Defendants argue plaintiff’s form complaint has not adequately alleged the allegedly negligent conduct. The complaint alleges, at p. 4, GN-1, that the defendants were negligent in their maintenance and operation of the premises, required plaintiff to work in an unsafe work environment, failed to properly train employees, all of which allege duty and breach. The complaint alleges damages as well. These allegations, under liberal pleading standards are sufficient to state a cause of action and to put defendants on notice of the allegations. OVERRULED. 

Premises Liability

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.¿¿Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp¿(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.¿¿

“Ordinarily, negligence may be alleged in general terms, without specific facts showing how the injury occurred, but there are ‘limits to the generality with which a plaintiff is permitted to state his cause of action, and . . . the plaintiff must indicate the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed.  He may not recover upon the bare statement that the defendant’s negligence has caused him injury.’ [Citation].” Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527.

Defendants argue the complaint has not identified the allegedly dangerous condition (Complaint, p. 5). The court agrees. All plaintiff alleges is “the subject premises was in a dangerous condition,” but he does not allege what about the premises was allegedly dangerous. This is too vague to put defendants on notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.