Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV01125, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01125    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: I

This is a demurrer and motion to strike by defendant.  Plaintiff alleges that defendant owned the property in question and, without proper permits, converted it from a single family home (which was consistent with zoning) to a treatment facility.  Plaintiff also alleges that he was lawfully on the property when he fell and hurt himself in an unilluminated  yard (the court presumes that the incident was at night.  (Complaint par. 17.)

Defendant states that the complaint is too vague to put defendant on notice as to the nature of the negligence.  The court disagrees, although barely.  The negligence is apparently having an unilluminated yard and allowing those in the facility for treatment to have access to the yard, where, presumably, they could injure themselves.  That isn’t much to go on, but it is enough for pleading purposes.  The details can be filled in through discovery.  Defendant also asserts that the second cause of action (premises liability) is duplicative of the first (negligence).  That is probably true, but it does no mischief for now.  Therefore, the demurrer is OVERRULED. 

Defendant also moves to strike the request for punitive damages.  The allegation is that the facility was being misused in that there was no permit to operate it as a treatment facility.  The court does not know if there are different safety requirements for such a facility than there are for homes, but it would hardly be shocking.  Nor does the court know whether there had been other injuries in the past.  All in all, this is better tested by way of summary judgment than demurrer.  The motion to strike is DENIED.

Defendant has 30 days to answer.