Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00025131-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00025131-CU-PO-CTL RICE VS VELING [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 08/15/2023

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff Tenant is suing defendant for General Negligence, Premises Liability- Negligence and Failure to Warn. Plaintiff is suing for injuries associated with a fall from a staircase without a railing within the rented unit. Landlord alleges that he had no knowledge that the railing had been removed by tenant.

Based on the undisputed facts, defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty.

'[W]here a landlord has relinquished control of property to a tenant, a 'bright line' rule has developed to moderate the landlord's duty of care owed to a third party injured on the property as compared with the tenant who enjoys possession and control. ''Because a landlord has relinquished possessory interest in the land, his or her duty of care to third parties injured on the land is attenuated as compared with the tenant who enjoys possession and control. Thus, before liability may be thrust on a landlord for a third party's injury due to a dangerous condition on the land, the plaintiff must show that the landlord had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition in question, plus the right and ability to cure the condition.' [¶] Limiting a landlord's obligations releases it from needing to engage in potentially intrusive oversight of the property, thus permitting the tenant to enjoy its tenancy unmolested.'' Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 404, 412.

The facts indicate: Mr. Veling rented property to a Mr. Friedman in December 2017. At the time Mr.

Friedman began living at the Subject Property, the stairs at the Subject Premises had a handrail. Mr.

Veling was never asked by Mr. Friedman or Plaintiff whether he could remove the handrails of the stairs at any time during his tenancy nor did Mr. Friedman ever tell Mr. Veling about the removal of the staircase railing. Mr. Veling did not even know that Mr. Friedman began renting the Subject Property to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not know of the existence of Mr. Veling; rather, Plaintiff admitted that she believed Mr. Friedman was the owner of the Subject Property. It was only after Plaintiff's injury that Plaintiff found out that Mr. Veling was the true owner of the Subject Premises. A year after Plaintiff began renting from Mr. Friedman, Plaintiff was injured on December 4, 2021, while walking down the staircase where she fell. Mr. Friedman never asked Mr. Veling whether he could remove the handrails of the stairs and Mr.

Veling did not know that Mr. Friedman began renting the Subject Property to Plaintiff until he received a letter from Plaintiff's attorney after Plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff, at no point prior to her injury, communicated to Mr. Veling that there was a dangerous condition on the Subject Premises.

Based on the above facts, there is no duty owed by defendant to plaintiff. Plaintiff opines that because Mr. Friedmann told Mr. Veling that he was going to make several 'home improvements' that Mr. Veling was put on notice of a dangerous condition and triggers a need for an inspection. (Rental credits were applied to allow for these improvements.) Mr. Veling testified at his deposition that he was never told by Mr. Friedmann exactly what Mr. Friedmann was going to do at the Subject Property. (See Defendant's Reply, Exh. G, 61:11-16; 86:1-87:7.) Any communications between Mr. Friedmann and Mr. Veling as to making 'several home improvements' did not provide Mr. Veling with actual knowledge of a dangerous Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3014495  42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  RICE VS VELING [IMAGED]  37-2022-00025131-CU-PO-CTL condition.

Plaintiff provides text messages as evidence that Mr. Friedmann provided the code to the front door, garage, and that Mr. Veling text stating 'Thanks. The view is so much better' is somehow proof of Mr.

Veling's actual knowledge of the missing staircase railing. In Mr. Veling's testimony at his deposition, he stated that his statement about the view was likely in response to how the garage looked, meaning that the garage been cleaned up. (Defendant's Reply, Exh. G, 90:21-91:8.) Plaintiff also argues that because the staircase railing was removed and stored in the property's garage during Plaintiff's tenancy and because Mr. Veling testified that he entered the garage at the property on May 27, 2020, that Mr. Veling would have seen the staircase railing. But Plaintiff has not provided any evidence as to when the staircase railing was removed, only that it was not attached when Plaintiff moved into the property late November 2020. (See Plaintiff's Opposition, Decl. of Molly Rice, ¶ 3 and ¶4). It is not clear that Mr. Veling would know.

Given the absence of a triable issue of fact on duty, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of defendant. Defendant is to provide a judgment for the Court's signature.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3014495  42