Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00456, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 22CMCV00456 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: A
22CMCV00456
Kimberly Hightower v. Lynwood Unified School District
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint
alleges that Plaintiff was on Defendant’s premises participating in a roller-skating
event when Plaintiff fell and sustained injury as she attempted to grab one of
the folding chairs, which were allegedly unstable. Plaintiff alleges claims for
negligence and premises liability.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendant
moves for an order adjudicating the complaint in its favor on grounds Plaintiff
has not identified a specific employee whose acts or omissions allegedly
created a dangerous condition of the property, Defendant is immune from
liability involving hazardous recreational activity, and Defendant did not owe
a duty to warn Plaintiff who assumed the risk of injury.
Defendant
timely served the motion on Plaintiff, who did not file an opposition.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary
judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c).) As the moving party, Defendant’s burden is to show that based on the
undisputed facts “one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not
separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense
to the cause of action."
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (p)(2).) If that threshold burden is
established, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show a triable issue of one or
more material facts. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c(p)(1).)
A party may move for summary
adjudication “as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more
affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of
duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there
is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an
affirmative defense as to any cause of action, [or] that there is no merit to a
claim for [punitive] damages.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (f)(1).) A motion for summary adjudication shall
be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative
defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 437c. subd.(f)(1).)
The
court applies the three-step analysis to motions for summary judgment or
adjudication: (1) identify the issues framed by the pleading, (2) determine
whether the moving party established facts which negate the opponents’ claim,
(3) if the moving party meets its threshold burden of persuasion and the burden
shifts, determine whether the opposing party has controverted those facts with
admissible evidence. (Torres
v. Reardon (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 831, 836.)
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.
Basis for liability and Plaintiff’s burden of
proof.
The
complaint alleges claims for negligence and premises liability pursuant to two
provisions of the Government Code. A
public entity is liable for injuries caused by a public entity employee, who
within the scope of employment, caused injury because of the employee’s act or
omission. (Gov.
Code, § 815.2.) Section 835 imposes liability on a public entity for injury
caused by a dangerous condition where either a public entity employee within
the scope of employment created the dangerous condition, or the public entity
had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and failed to
protect against it in a reasonable amount of time. (Gov.
Code, § 835 subd. (a) and (b).) Section 835 is the sole statutory basis for
imposing liability on public entities as property owners. (Summerfield
v. City of Inglewood (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 983, 993.)
In
order to state a claim for liability under Section 835, Plaintiff must plead
and prove that “(1) a dangerous condition existed on the public property at the
time of the injury; (2) the condition proximately caused the injury; (3) the
condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury
sustained; and (4) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition of the property in a sufficient time to have taken measures
to protect against it." (Brenner
v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439.)
B.
The undisputed facts.
As
Plaintiff did not file an opposition, all material facts proffered by Defendant
are without dispute. Plaintiff attended a roller-skating event at Defendant’s
gymnasium for a fundraiser (UF1.) Plaintiff cannot identify who organized the
event on behalf of Defendant (UF 4.) Plaintiff skated for an hour to an hour
and a half without incident until the end, when Plaintiff skated back to her
seat and attempted to grab a chair to sit, and the chair slipped under her
hand, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. (UF 11-12.)
C.
Plaintiff has not identified and joined a public
entity employee.
Vicarious
liability against a public entity will attach only if it is determined that an
employee was negligent. (Munoz
v. City of Union City (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077, disapproved
on other grounds as stated in Hayes
v. County of San Diego (2013) 57 Cal.4th 622, 636.) There is no dispute
that Plaintiff is unable to identify a public entity employee who allegedly
engaged in an act or omission that caused Plaintiff’s injuries (UF 4, 22, 40.)
This is fatal to Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Gov. Code, section 815.2.
D.
Dangerous condition of public property.
Plaintiff’s
claim for violation of Gov. Code, section 835 fails for the same reason;
Plaintiff is required to establish that a public employee was negligent in
order to establish that the public entity is vicariously liable. (Gov.
Code, § 835 subd. (a) and (b); UF 4, 22, 40.)
E.
Defendant is immune from liability.
A
public entity is immune from liability for injuries to a person who
participates in a hazardous recreational activity, defined as a “recreational
activity conducted on property of a public entity that creates a substantial,
as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant, risk of injury to a
participant or a spectator.” (Id.) The statute expressly identifies
skateboarding as an activity for which a public entity is immune from
liability. (Id.) By analogy, Defendant relies on Calhoon
v. Lewis (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 108, which determined that skate
boarding is an activity that falls within the primary assumption of the risk
doctrine and prevents imposition of duty on the public entity “to eliminate or
protect a plaintiff against risks that are inherent in a sport or activity.” (Calhoon
at 115.)
Activities that are "done for enjoyment or thrill, requires physical
exertion as well as elements of skill, and involves a challenge containing a
potential risk of injury” fall within that doctrine. (Id.)
There
is no dispute that Plaintiff was aware that one of the outcomes of roller
skating is falling (UF 15.) She knew that wrist guards support the wrists if a
fall occurs, and while Plaintiff owned wrist guards, she did not bring them to
the event (UF 26, 28, 33, 44, 46, 51.)
III. CONCLUSION
The
material undisputed facts identified above are sufficient to establish
Defendant’s burden of proving it is entitled to judgment on the entire
complaint in its favor. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (p)(2). Plaintiff has
not sustained her burden in opposing the motion with evidence establishing that
triable issues of fact remain. (Id.) Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.