Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02094, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 23CHCV02094 Hearing Date: June 6, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 6/6/25
Case #23CHCV02094
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Motion filed on 3/13/25.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Islands
Restaurants, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Maria E. Sola
NOTICE: ok
RULING: The request for summary judgment is
granted.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of a slip/trip and fall incident
that occurred at an Islands Restaurant located in Northridge, California. Plaintiff Maria E. Sola (Plaintiff) alleges
that in the afternoon on or about 6/12/23 she slipped and fell while walking
from the bar area to her table in the Islands Restaurant located at 11400
Porter Ranch Dr. in Northridge, California.
(Separate Statement (SS) 1-4)
On 7/14/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant
Islands Restaurants, LLC (Defendant) alleging causes of action for: (1)
Premises Liability and (2) Negligence.
(SS 26). The complaint alleges
that the restaurant floors were shiny and slippery from either its flooring
material and/or liquid, grease or another transitory substance on its surface
and/or lack of slip resistance. (SS 27). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant knew or
should have known about the “dangerous condition” of the floor and failed to
install proper flooring material with adequate slip resistance, and failed to
timely and adequately inspect, maintain, clean, dry, correct and/or warn
Plaintiff of the floor. (SS 28).
Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot establish
causation or knowledge of a dangerous condition. Therefore, on 3/13/25, Defendant filed and
served the instant motion seeking an order granting summary judgment in favor
of Defendant on all causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint for premises
liability and negligence. Alternatively,
Defendant seeks summary adjudication in its favor on Plaintiff’s cause of
action for premises liability and Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence. Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise
responded to the motion.
ANALYSIS
A party may move for summary judgment if it is contended
that the action has no merit. CCP
437c(a). A cause of action has no merit
if one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be separately
established. CCP 437c(o)(1). A defendant has met its burden of showing
that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more
elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pled, cannot be
established. CCP 437c(p)(2). Once the defendant has met that initial 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. Id.
Plaintiff’s premises liability and negligence causes of
action have the same elements of duty, breach, causation and resulting
damage/injury. Kesner (2016) 1
C5th 1132, 1158; Brooks (1989) 215 CA3d 1611, 1619; Breese (1981)
29 C3d 923, 931. There is no inference
of negligence merely because a fall occurred on the premises. See Brown (1993) 4 C4th 820,
826. People often fall due to their own
negligence and no fault of another party.
Gray (1962) 202 CA2d 319, 328.
Plaintiff admitted at her deposition that when she fell,
the floor did not feel sticky or wet to her and that she does not know what
caused her to slip . (SS 2, 3, 7, 8). Surveillance video of the incident shows that
just after Plaintiff got up from the floor, two restaurant employees walked
over to where she fell to assess the floor and that no further action by them
was required. (SS 10). Additionally, a photograph of the floor in
the area Plaintiff alleged she fell was taken by a restaurant employee immediately
after Plaintiff’s report of the incident, and shows the condition of the floor
in the area Plaintiff fell at the time of her fall. (SS 12).
This photograph shows that the floor where Plaintiff fell was not wet
and did not have any substance, liquid or otherwise, on its surface. (SS 13).
The fact that the floor may have been shiny does not,
alone, establish the existence of a dangerous condition. Buehler (1990) 224 CA3d 729,
733-735. Plaintiff cannot present any
evidence that the floor was slippery.
Rather, Defendant’s expert’s testing shows that the floor was safe for
walking under dry or wet conditions. (SS
21-23). Additionally, Plaintiff
testified that she fell forward to the floor onto her knees and right hand and
them onto her right forearm and chest.
(SS 6). Plaintiff’s description
of the fall is corroborated by the video surveillance. (SS 9).
Based on Plaintiff’s description of how she fell, the mechanics of the
fall are consistent with a stumble or trip unrelated to the slip resistance of
the floor surface. (See SS 24-25). There is no evidence to support Plaintiff’s
claim that she fell because the floor was slippery from being shiny. Rather, the evidence indicates that Plaintiff
fell because she mis-stepped. (See
3-13, 16-27).
To establish negligence under a premises liability theory,
a plaintiff must show that a defendant had actual or constructive notice of a
dangerous condition on its premises in time to correct the condition. Ortega (2001) 26 C4th 1200, 1203; Oldenburg
(1957) 152 CA2d 733, 741. Here, there is
no evidence that a dangerous condition existed much less that Defendant had
actual or constructive notice of same. Contrary
to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint that Defendant failed to timely and
adequately inspect, maintain, clean, dry, correct and/or warn Plaintiff of the
floor, the surveillance video of the incident shows other people walking over
the incident area before Plaintiff’s fall without any indication of any
problems with the floor. (SS 11, 28). Additionally, the evidence shows that the
restaurant’s floor, including the floor in the area where Plaintiff fell, is swept twice daily – once in
the morning before the restaurant is opened to customers and again at the end
of the day when the restaurant is closed.
(SS 16). The evidence also shows
that the restaurant’s floor, including the floor where Plaintiff fell, is also
mopped every morning before the restaurant is opened to customers. (SS 17).
Further, the evidence shows that the restaurant’s floor, including the
floor in the area in which Plaintiff fell, is inspected by all employees during
their respective shifts. (SS 18).
As noted above, the video surveillance also shows that after
Plaintiff fell, two restaurant employees walk over to where she fell to assess
the floor and that no further action by them was required. (SS 10).
The photograph of the floor in the area Plaintiff alleged she slipped
and fell that was taken by a restaurant employee immediately following
Plaintiff’s report of the incident, shows that the floor of the incident site
was not wet and did not have any substance, liquid or otherwise, on its
surface. (SS 12, 13). As such, there was nothing for Defendant to
have actual or constructive notice of in order to remedy.
Plaintiff has not presented any evidence to refute or
create a triable issue of material fact with regard to any of the
foregoing. As such, Defendant is
entitled to summary judgment in its favor.
CONCLUSION
The request for summary judgment is granted.