Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STC02328, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STC02328    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT
17

TENTATIVE RULING

Segway’s
demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

            On
1/20/2022, Plaintiff Natasha Tsuji (Plaintiff) filed suit against Bird Rides,
Inc. (Bird) and Segway, Inc. (Segway) (collectively Defendants), alleging: (1)
strict products liability; and (2) negligence.

            Now,
Segway demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.

Factual Background

Plaintiff
filed this action against Defendants for injuries she allegedly sustained while
walking in downtown Los Angeles when she “tripped and/or slipped” on a
“motorized scooter that was unmarked and allowed to exist and be left in
disrepair on the sidewalk.” (Complaint ¶¶ 16, 18.)

Discussion 

Segway argues
that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for
either products liability or general negligence.

Sufficiently
pleading a cause of action for negligence requires the plaintiff to allege
facts that support each element thereof: a legal duty of care, breach of that
duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. (Zamora v. Shell Oil Co.
(1997) 55 5 Cal.App.4th 204, 210.) To sufficiently plead a cause of action for
strict products liability, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the defendant
placed a defective product on the market, and that the defect in the product
proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury. (Scott v. Metabolife International,
Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 404, 415; Thomas v. Lusk (1994) 27
Cal.App.4th 1709, 1716 fn. 3 [liability predicated upon showing a defect in the
product was proximate cause of injury].)

And although
negligence may ordinarily be alleged in general terms, “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].”
(See Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 527, quoting Guilliams
v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 101 [“plaintiff must indicate
the acts or omissions which are said to have been negligently performed.”].)

Here,
Plaintiff alleges that Segway manufacturers Bird scooters, and that Bird
scooters are unstable, improperly designed, and does not have adequate systems
in place to ensure that the scooters are in good condition to be operated.
(Complaint ¶¶ 17-22.)

However,
Plaintiff does not allege that she was injured while operating a Bird scooter
or engaging with an operational Bird scooter. Rather, Plaintiff’s claim is
based on an allegation that she was injured when she tripped over a scooter
left on the sidewalk. (Complaint ¶ 18.) Accordingly, Plaintiff must allege
facts which could show a connection between the manufacturing of the scooter
and Plaintiff tripping over the scooter on a public sidewalk at some
unidentified later point.

As a general
rule, “one owes no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those
endangered by such conduct.” (Jackson v. Clements (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d
983, 986.) As such, the Court agrees with Segway that, as alleged, Plaintiff is
attempting to hold Segway “responsible for the actions of unknown and
unidentified third parties: the scooter’s last rider who allegedly negligently
parked/left the scooter on the sidewalk and/or third-party vandalism, such as
knocking over or otherwise meddling with the parked scooter on the sidewalks of
downtown Los Angeles. (Demurrer, 5: 7-10.)

Such
liability is unsupported by law. Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to allege
facts which could show that Segway owed Plaintiff a duty that was breached, and
that Segway caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

Based on the
foregoing, Segway’s demurrer is sustained, with 20 days leave to amend.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April   
, 2023

   Hon. Jon R.
Takasugi

   Judge of the
Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must
send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org
by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits
on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must
identify the party submitting on the tentative. 
If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this
tentative as the final order.  If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the
tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed
off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is
strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present
are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry
if admission could create a public health risk. 
The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A.
Court Connect.  For more information,
please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult
times is appreciated.