Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV09640, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV09640, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09640 Hearing Date: December 21, 2023 Dept: 30

CLIFSHEENA YEARWOOD vs LULA MAE MOUTON, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP Section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).)

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Discussion

Defendant moves for summary judgment, or summary adjudication, on the basis that it had no actual or constructive notice of allegedly dangerous condition at issue.

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.¿¿(Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp¿(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)¿¿Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property¿to¿avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.¿¿(Annocki¿v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC¿(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)¿¿The existence and scope of duty are legal questions for the court.¿¿(Id.¿at¿36.)¿¿If a dangerous condition exists, the property owner is “under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition¿reasonably safe for their¿[customers’]¿use or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm.”¿¿(Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc.¿(1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 446.)¿

“A plaintiff alleging injuries based on a dangerous condition must prove the defendant¿either: (1) created the dangerous condition, or (2)¿knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.”¿ (See¿Peralta v. Vons Companies, Inc.¿(2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1036; see also¿Ortega v. Kmart Corp.¿(2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.)¿¿“[A] defendant¿is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the plaintiff fails to show that the dangerous condition existed for at least a sufficient time to be discovered by ordinary care and inspection.”¿¿(Ortega,¿supra, 26 Cal.4th at¿1207.)¿¿“Whether a dangerous condition has existed long enough for a reasonably prudent person to have discovered it is a question of fact for the jury.” (See id. at 1207.) “The owner must inspect the premises or take other proper action to ascertain their condition, and if, by the exercise of reasonable care, the owner would have discovered the condition, he is liable for failing to correct it.” (See id.)

Defendant argues that it had no actual or constructive notice of any alleged dangerous condition. Defendant employs a property manager, Stephen Jenkins, to handle general maintenance and repair issues as needed on the premises. (Undisputed Material Fact (UMF) No. 10.) Both Defendant and Jenkins are available at any time by phone to hear and respond to any complaints or repair needs by tenants, or when they visit the premises. (UMF No. 11.) Jenkins himself visits the property at least 5 days per week. (UMF No. 17.) As for the parking gates themselves, Defendant has an express policy that they are to be inspected and maintained on a regular basis. (UMF No 12.) For the last 15 years, Defendant has retained William Henagan of Southwest IronWorks to inspect, maintain and, if necessary, repair the parking gates located on the property. (UMF Nos. 13, 24.) Henagan visits the property and inspects the parking gates at least once a month and is also available to do this work any time as needed. (UMF Nos. 25, 26.) Before this incident occurred on February 2, 2021, neither Defendant or any of her employees (Jenkins or Henagan) have ever been informed by any person that the metal parking gates at the premises (including the one that allegedly fell on plaintiff) has ever come off the railings on which they were placed. (UMF Nos. 14, 19, 21, 28.) Nor have they been told or made aware of any past accidents of any sort involving the parking gates at the premises (including the one that allegedly fell on plaintiff.) (UMF Nos. 15, 22, 30.) Henagan has additionally testified that he inspected the gate at issue each month since he began working for Defendant 15 years ago and has never perceived or been told of any particular problems with its use or condition. (UMF No. 26, 27.)

The court finds that Defendant has met her initial burden of showing there are no triable issues of material fact as to whether she had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition as there was a reasonable inspection system in place, yet the gate’s alleged dangerous condition was not discovered, and she had no prior complaints regarding the gate, showing she had no actual notice. Further, as the negligence cause of action relies on the same facts as the cause of action for premises liability, Defendant has also met its burden as to the negligence cause of action. As a result, the burden shifts to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to meet her burden. Thus, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.