Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV33486, Date: 2023-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33486    Hearing Date: March 8, 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

MOTION

Plaintiff Regina Lynn Patton (Plaintiff) sued Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California Department of Transportation, C M C Medical Plaza Partners, and Bird Rides, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained in a trip and fall incident over an electric scooter parked on a sidewalk. 

Defendant Bird Rides, Inc. (Bird) demurs to the third cause of action in Plaintiff’s complaint for products liability.  Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

ANALYSIS

“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.) 

            Bird demurs to the third cause of action for products liability for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 

A defendant “may be held strictly liable for its product if the plaintiff was injured while using the product in a reasonably foreseeable way. In order for there to be strict liability, the product does not have to be unreasonably dangerous—just defective. Products liability may be premised upon a theory of design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn.” (Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 990, 1000, internal quotations & citations omitted.)  “Whether or not a produce was defectively designed or manufactured is a factual issues to be determined by the trier off fact.  However, whether or not the subject object or instrumentality is a ‘product’ is a question of law for the trial court[.]”  (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611.) 

Bird highlights the following portion of Plaintiff’s Complaint in support of its contention that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for products liability against Bird:

• Plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk near 1414 S Grand Ave., when all of a sudden Plaintiff tripped and fell on unmarked, unsecured and/or unattended electric scooter and/or similar object causing her to trip and fall, thereby causing Plaintiff to endure severe injury and pain.

(Complaint, pp. 6.)

            Bird argues that the third cause of action fails because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that the scooter, she allegedly tripped on contained a manufacturing defect, was defectively designed, or did not include sufficient instructions or warning of potential safety hazards.  Further Bird notes that according to the pleadings, Plaintiff was not a user or rider of the subject electric scooter, nor was the scooter in use at the time of the incident.  The scooter was rather a stationary instrument located on a sidewalk.  Accordingly, Bird concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for products liability, whether based in strict liability, negligence, or failure to warn, based on said defects in the pleadings.

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues she stated sufficient facts to state a cause of action for products liability by checking the appropriate boxes on the judicial form complaint.  By checking these boxes Plaintiff alleges the following:

• On or about October 20, 2021 plaintiff was injured by an electric scooter and/or similar object
• Each of the defendants knew the product would be purchased and used without inspection for defects.  The product was defective was defective when it left the control of each defendant.  The product at the time of injury was being used in the manner intended by the defendants, and used in the manner that was reasonably foreseeable by defendants as involving a substantial danger not readily apparent.  Adequate warning of the danger were not given.
• Plaintiff’s injury was the legal (proximate) result of strict liability of Bird Rides, Inc., who manufactured or assembled the product, designed and manufactured component parts supplied to the manufacturer, and sold the product to the public
• Plaintiff’s injury was the legal (proximate) result of the negligence of Bird Rides, Inc. who owed a duty to plaintiff
• Plaintiff’s injury was the legal (proximate) result of the breach of warranty by Bird Rides, Inc. who breached an implied warranty and/or breached an express warranty which was written and/or oral
• Plaintiff’s injury was the legal (proximate) result of Bird Rides, Inc. who are liable to plaintiffs for other reasons

(See Complaint, p. 9.)  The Court agrees with Plaintiff and finds that based on her checking off the appropriate boxes in the form pleading, she has sufficiently plead ultimate facts required to allege a products liability cause of action, including the existence of a defect, a duty owed by Bird Rides, Inc. to Plaintiff, and that said defect was the legal and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages.  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.) “[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].) [1]

            Bird additionally attests that the third cause of action is fatally uncertain.  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, 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 third cause of action for products liability does not fail for uncertainty.

            However, as Plaintiff concedes in her opposition, she mistakenly failed to fill out the section of the form complaint labeled: “Prod. L-3”, and did not mark the box explaining her relationship to the product; whether she was a purchaser, user, or bystander of the product.  Thus, the Court, on its own motion, sustains a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint for her failure to complete section Prod, L-3 in the form complaint and grants Plaintiff leave to amend the defect.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court sustains a demurrer to the third cause of action in the complaint with leave to amend.  The Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve an amended complaint in conformance with the Court’s ruling on or before March 22, 2023.   

Bird shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.