Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV26858, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26858    Hearing Date: March 27, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

Plaintiff Grace Iverson (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Ecolab Inc. (Defendant) based on third degree burns Plaintiff allegedly suffered while utilizing dishwashing solution supplied by Defendant.  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges general negligence and premises liability causes of action against Defendant. 

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for premises liability.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendant replies.

ANALYSIS

1.      DEMURRER

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.) 

A.    FAILURE TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION

            Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for premises liability.  Defendant attests Plaintiff has only advanced conclusory statements and has failed to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action for premises liability against it.  Defendant specifically argues that Plaintiff has failed to state facts to support her allegation that Defendant is an owner or controller of the subject premises where the incident occurred.

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)  Therefore, to state a claim for premises liability, Plaintiff must allege: (1) defendant owned or controlled the subject property; (2) defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; (3) plaintiff was harmed; and (4) defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. (See Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.)

The second cause of action for premises liability alleges in pertinent part the following regarding Defendant’s alleged ownership and control over the subject premises:

Defendants, and each of them, failed to act reasonably in the installation, maintenance, repair and upkeep of dish washer chemicals located at 8225 W. Sunset Boulevard, Mount Olympus, California 90046.  Defendants, and each of them, further failed to adequately warn users of a dangerous condition on the premises, specifically a, a dishwasher that was dangerously stocked with chemical cleaning solutions which were toxic to human skin if the chemical fluid came into contact with a person . . . Defendants and each of them, in failing to act reasonably with regard to the installation and maintenance of this chemical, proximately caused injuries and damages to the Plaintiff which will be proven at the time of trial.  Defendants, and each of them, monitored this "set up" monthly, and were fully aware of the condition which led to the severe injuries of Ms. Grace Iverson.

(Complaint, p. 5.) 

By checking off the applicable boxes in the Judicial Council Pleading Form, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant negligently owned, maintained, managed and operated the described premises, and willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.  (Complaint, p. 5.) 

The Court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently pled the ultimate facts necessary to state a cause of action for premises liability against Defendant.  Ultimate facts are those “constituting the cause of action” or those upon which liability depends, e.g., duty of care, breach of the duty and causation (damages).  (See Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) [1]  “[T]he complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form a part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872 [at pleading stage, plaintiff need not specify which of defendant’s employees committed negligent acts or omissions].) [2] 

Therefore, for pleading purposes, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for premises liability.  

B.     UNCERTAINTY

A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the pleading is so bad that the

responding party cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Where a demurrer is made upon the ground of uncertainty, the demurrer must distinctly specify exactly how or why the pleading is uncertain, and where such uncertainty appears by reference to page and line numbers. (See Fenton v. Groveland Comm. Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809.)

Here, Defendant also demurs to the second cause of action on the basis of uncertainty.  Here, as is discussed above, Plaintiff relies on a Judicial Council Form Complaint designed to lay out the ultimate facts of a cause of action in a clear and concise fashion.  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s second cause of action for premises liability does not fail for uncertainty.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action for premises liability in the Complaint.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.