Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00037365-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 05, 2023

10/06/2023  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 Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00037365-CU-PO-CTL HARRIS VS UC SAN DIEGO MEDICAL CENTER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 04/24/2023

Defendant THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA's UNOPPOSED Demurrer is SUSTAINED. The Court will hear as to whether leave to amend should be granted.

Plaintiff asserts one claim for premises liability under three theories: negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property after a toilet collapsed from underneath her.

As to the general negligence theory, the Regents is provided statutory immunity under the Tort Claims Act. Government Code section 815(a) states, '[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute a 'public entity' is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.' (Gov. Code § 815(a).) Common law claims may not, as a matter of law, be brought against public entities. (Gov. Code § 815(a).) As to the Failure to Warn theory, the statute relied upon - Civil Code Section 846(a) – does not apply.

Civil Code section 846(a) provides immunity to private landowners related to the issue of premises liability if the land is used for 'recreational purposes.' An exception to this immunity is if there was a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn. Section 846 applies to private landowners and does not apply to public entities, including The Regents. (See Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. No. 2028 v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699 [section 846 does not apply to state, county and locally owned governmental property.].) Even so, Section 846 requires the land in question to be used for 'recreational purposes,' which is defined as 'an activity engaged in for pleasure or exercise that is intended to refresh the body or mind by diversion, amusement or play.' (See Valladares v. Stone (1990) 218 Cal.3d 362, 369.) Plaintiff did not allege she was on The Regents' property for recreational purposes, nor will she be able to amend this theory with facts to support such a theory.

As to the Cause of Action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property Theory of Premises Liability, plaintiff has failed to plead with specificity that plaintiff had knowledge of the dangerous condition.

The Court will hear as to whether leave to amend should be granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2966350  47