Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03435, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV03435 Hearing Date: June 3, 2025 Dept: 207
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
DEPARTMENT |
207 |
|
HEARING DATE |
June
3, 2025 |
|
CASE NUMBER |
23SMCV03435 |
|
MOTION |
Motion
for Summary Judgment |
|
Defendants City of Santa Monica and Andrew
Piper |
|
|
OPPOSING PARTY |
Plaintiff
Leonard Moreno |
MOVING PAPERS:
REPLY PAPERS:
MOTION
This case arises from injuries Plaintiff Leonard Moreno allegedly sustained
while riding a bus after the operator stopped the bus suddenly.
Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint alleges two causes of
action for (1) motor vehicle – negligence and (2) general negligence against
Defendants Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Santa Monica Department of Transportation,
City of Santa Monica, and Andrew Piper – Doe 1.
Santa Monica Big Blue Bus and Santa Monica Department of Transportation
were subsequently dismissed on April 15, 2024.
Defendants City of Santa Monica (“City”) and Andrew Piper (“Piper”)
(together, “Defendants”) now move for summary judgment on the following
grounds:
·
ISSUE 1: Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for
Motor Vehicle and Second Cause of Action for General Negligence fail because
Plaintiff cannot demonstrate causation as a matter of law. Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d
1041, 1052.
·
ISSUE 2: Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action for
Motor Vehicle and Second Cause of Action for General Negligence fail against
the City of Santa Monica because liability against public entities is
exclusively statutory, and no vicarious liability applies. Cal. Gov. Code § 815.
Plaintiff opposes the motion and
Defendants reply.
LEGAL STANDARD – MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
“[T]he party moving for
summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue
of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]
There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would
allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the
party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”
(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)
“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of
production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable
issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a
shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden
of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a
triable issue of material fact.” (Ibid.)
“On a summary judgment
motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing
party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the
evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function
is to identify issues rather than to determine issues. Only when the inferences are indisputable may
the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the evidence is in conflict,
the factual issues must be resolved by trial.”
(Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839
[cleaned up].) Further, “the trial court
may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose
version is more likely true. Nor may the
trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of
credibility.” (Id. at p. 840
[cleaned up]; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or
summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the
light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of that party”].)
EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTIONS
With respect to Defendants’
objections, the Court rules as follows:
DISCUSSION
1. CAUSATION
“The elements of a cause of
action for negligence are (1) a legal duty to use reasonable care, (2) breach
of that duty, and (3) proximate [or legal] cause between the breach and (4) the
plaintiff's injury.” (Phillips v. TLC
Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139.)
In support of Defendants’
argument that Plaintiff will be unable to prove causation, Defendants have advanced
the following:
· Plaintiff was asleep when the bus
aggressively stopped, causing him to fly forward and hit his head on a fixed
object. (UMF No. 3.)
· Plaintiff did not notify the bus driver of
the incident. (UMF No. 5.)
· Plaintiff cannot identify any witnesses to
the incident. (UMF No. 6.)
· Plaintiff admits he does not know why the bus
driver applied the brakes at the time of the incident. (UMF No. 7.)
· Plaintiff admits he does not know the speed
of the bus at the time of the incident.
(UMF No. 8.)
· Plaintiff admits he does not know if the
incident occurred at an intersection. (UMF No. 9.)
· Plaintiff admits he does not now if there was
a traffic signal facing the bus at the time of the incident. (UMF No. 10.)
· Defendant Piper, the bus driver, was unaware
of any incident or injury that occurred on March 3, 2023. (UMF No. 11.)
· There were no reports of injuries, nor any
other claims on the date of the incident.
(UMF No. 13.)
· Given the amount of time that had passed,
there was no longer video of the alleged incident. (UMF No. 14.)
Defendants’ evidence does not squarely
address causation. It is apparent that
to the extent the bus jerked, that jerking motion propelled Plaintiff forward
into a fixed object, directly causing his injuries. Defendants’ evidence does not demonstrate any
intervening or superseding causes that would cut Defendants off from liability,
nor does it suggest that it was somehow not foreseeable that passengers could
be injured by the motion of the bus braking hard.
Rather, Defendants’ evidence
touches on other aspects of negligence, such as whether the driver breached his
duty of care, or whether Plaintiff will be able to prove he sustained any
injuries.
Therefore, the Court does not
find that Defendants have met their initial burdens of production and persuasion that Plaintiff will be unable to prove
causation. As such, the Court finds that
the burden of production does not shift to Plaintiff.
Notwithstanding, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to raise triable issues
of material fact regarding the cause of Plaintiff’s purported injuries – the operator
of the bus braking hard. (See Plaintiff’s
Response to Defendants’ Separate Statement, Additional Undisputed Facts, Nos.
19-21.) How or what caused Plaintiff’s
injuries are issues for a fact-finder to determine at trial.
2. STATUTORY LIABILITY
Defendants next argue that Plaintiff
may only maintain an action for negligence against the City by way of its
vicarious liability for the negligent conduct of its employee, and because
Plaintiff has not demonstrated Piper’s negligence, Plaintiff’s causes of action
against the City also fail.
But as discussed above,
Defendants have not met their initial burdens of production and persuasion that
Plaintiff will be unable to prove causation.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s cause of action against the City for vicarious
liability similarly survives.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because Defendants have not met their initial burdens of production
and persuasion to demonstrate that Plaintiff will be unable to prove causation,
the Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the
notice with a proof of service regarding the same.
DATED: June 3, 2025 ___________________________
Michael
E. Whitaker
Judge
of the Superior Court