Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV04454, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04454    Hearing Date: April 22, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Schneider v. City of Santa Monica, Case no. 24SMCV04454

Hearing date April 22, 2025

Defendant Chabad at SMC’ Demurrer to the Complaint

Plaintiff Schneider sues defendants City of Santa Monica and Chabad at SMC for negligence and premises liability arising out of injuries sustained when a tree branch fell on his head while walking on a public sidewalk outside defendant Chabad’s property. Defendant Chabad demurs to the first and second causes of action. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must allege essential facts “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.

Chabad argues the tree sits on the road verge, which is public property not under Chabad’s control. A property owner is not liable for a tree located on public property. Jones v. Deeter (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798, 801. “Under the facts of Jones, any dangerous condition resulting from the trees was attributable to the city as the city had planted and maintained the trees… the owner of the adjacent property is not to be held liable in tort to users of the sidewalk unless the owner creates the condition that is a cause of the injury. Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Ass’n. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1332.

Plaintiff alleges the tree was a dangerous condition of public property. Compl. para. 31. Plaintiff alleges the City failed to properly inspect, maintain and monitor the tree. Compl. para. 32. Plaintiff alleges “the dangerous condition of public property was owned, improperly maintained and controlled by Defendant [City]” and “Plaintiff was exposed to this dangerous condition through Defendant [City]’s negligent acts or omissions by an employee(s) and/or agent(s) of the public entity.” Compl. para. 33. Plaintiff alleges the tree “existed on [sic] was an unnatural improved portion of public property, as evidenced by its proximity to the roadway and sidewalk.” Compl. para. 35.

The allegations are that the tree was on public property. Plaintiff alleges negligent acts/omissions of the City, not Chabad, caused the tree to fall. Plaintiff cannot establish duty or breach thereof by moving defendant Chabad as pled.

Plaintiff argues Chabad acted recklessly and negligently buts cites no supporting allegations in the complaint. Counsel Brief’s declaration states plaintiff “retained the services of an arborist.” Decl. Brief para. 2. Plaintiff also cites a CalTrans manual on yield sign placement. Outside information is improper on demurrer. Neither of these extrinsic facts, even if the court could assume they were true, alleges duty, breach or causation by moving defendant.

SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.