Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2021-00049993-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 05, 2024

01/05/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2021-00049993-CU-PO-CTL HOMA VS KOPLEWICZ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 10/13/2023

The Motion (ROA # 225) of Defendants DAVID KOPLEWICZ and BIBIANA HERRERA ('Defendants') for summary judgment of the Complaint by Plaintiff ASHLEY HOMA, ('Plaintiff'), is DENIED.

Defendants' Request (ROA # 229) for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Defendants' evidentiary objections (ROA # 305) are OVERRULED.

Defendants argue the element of causation cannot be proved. Premises liability is a form of negligence.

Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 1611, 1619.

The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Id. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence. Id. Assuming Plaintiff has related conflicting versions of the events leading to the fall and injury, this only serves to create disputed material facts. This does not necessarily demonstrate that the condition of the premises did not contribute to the fall accident.

Similarly, assuming Plaintiff was using LSD, it is unknown how this affected Plaintiff's ability to walk and navigate around obstacles. The use of this drug does not necessarily demonstrate that the condition of the premises did not also contribute to the fall accident.

Defendants also argue they did not owe a duty to Plaintiff because the tripping hazard (tree stump) was open and obvious. Whether a duty should be imposed on Defendant depends on a variety of factors including the foreseeability of harm to Plaintiff. Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal. App. 5th 438, 446.

Foreseeability of harm is typically absent when a dangerous condition is open and obvious. Id. at 447.

Generally, if a danger is so obvious that a person could reasonably be expected to see it, the condition itself serves as a warning, and the landowner is under no further duty to remedy or warn of the condition.

Id.

In that situation, owners and possessors of land are entitled to assume others will perceive the obvious Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3035806  12 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HOMA VS KOPLEWICZ [IMAGED]  37-2021-00049993-CU-PO-CTL and take action to avoid the dangerous condition. Id. An exception to this general rule exists when it is foreseeable that the danger may cause injury despite the fact that it is obvious (e.g., when necessity requires persons to encounter it). Id. In other words, while the obviousness of the condition and its dangerousness may obviate the landowner's duty to remedy or warn of the condition in some situations, such obviousness will not negate a duty of care when it is foreseeable that, because of necessity or other circumstances, a person may choose to encounter the condition. Id. In this case, there is a dispute regarding the lighting. Whether Plaintiff should have appreciated the tree stump condition and whether the condition was foreseeable are material questions of disputed fact.

Defendants also argue Plaintiff assumed the risk of staying at their property while using drugs. When the doctrine applies, Plaintiff's assumption of the risk acts as a complete bar to liability. Moser v. Ratinoff (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 1211, 1219.

However, Defendant generally does have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport. Id. at 1222.

Even though Defendant generally has no legal duty to eliminate (or protect Plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself, Defendant may not increase the likelihood of injury above that which is inherent. Id. The present situation does not involve a participant in a sporting event. The extent to which Plaintiff used drugs, the extent of any impairment and whether the condition of the premises also contributed to the accident are all disputed material facts.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3035806  12