Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01435, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01435 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01435 Susan
Boyd v. City of Compton, et al.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff slipped and fell on an uneven
sidewalk. Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence and premises liability.
Defendant, City of Compton (“City”) demurrers to the second
cause of action for premises liability on grounds Plaintiff has not alleged
facts to support all elements of the claim and with required particularity.
Plaintiff argues that the claim for dangerous condition
of public property is adequately alleged. Alternatively, Plaintiff asks for leave to
amend.
In reply, City argues that the complaint alleges
conclusions of law and fact, which are improper.
A demurrer tests the
sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law.
(Schmidt v.
Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the
complaint’s sufficiency, the court must assume the truth of the properly
pleaded factual allegations as well as facts that can be reasonably inferred
from those expressly pleaded facts. The court may also consider matters
properly subject to judicial notice. (Blank v.
Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)
The court may not consider
contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v.
Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.) Plaintiff is required
to allege facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action.
(Rakestraw
v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81
Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. Code Civ.
Proc., § 430.10(e); (Zelig v.
County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112,
1126.)
Sufficient facts are the
essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with
particularity that is sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the
nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley
v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) Whether the Plaintiff will be able to prove
the pleaded facts is irrelevant. (Stevens v.
Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)
A demurrer may also be
sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s
factual allegations are so confusing, they do not sufficiently apprise a
defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams
v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185
Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).)
To
state a cause of action against a public entity under Government Code section
835, a plaintiff must allege facts to establish (1) the existence of a
dangerous condition that caused injury to plaintiff, (2) the condition created
a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury sustained by the plaintiff (3) and either
the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition
or an employee of the public entity created the condition. (Gov. Code, § 835; Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439.)
Plaintiff
checked all of the appropriate boxes on the Judicial Council form complaint
that state the ultimate facts supporting elements of the claim. Additionally, Plaintiff
alleges “sufficiently detailed and specific” facts to provide a factual context
for the claim. (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation
v. Superior Court
(1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1484.)
To be “demurrer proof” a plaintiff must allege essential ultimate facts to
state a claim. (Id.)
The complaint meets that threshold.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants (all government entities)
owned, maintained, managed, and controlled the pavement/sidewalk where
Plaintiff fell. Defendants allegedly failed to barricade the area and/or warn
of the dangerous condition. The allegations that Defendants had actual or
constructive notice or created the condition is set forth on the form.
(Complaint, ¶ 4.)
Defendant
contends that Plaintiff did not allege the degree of unevenness of the sidewalk.
(Dem. 5:18-21.) However, Defendant does not cite authority requiring that allegation.
The City cites Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559 which discussed the degree of
dangerous of the condition, however, at issue was whether the condition was
trivial, which was a triable issue supporting denial of the motion for summary
judgment/ adjudication. (Stathoulis
at 569.) The summary judgment standard differs from the standard
applied to a demurrer.
Here,
Plaintiff alleges that the condition was dangerous, which the Court accepts as
true for purposes of a demurrer. (Gov. Code, § 830.2 [" A condition is not a
dangerous condition within the meaning of this chapter if the trial or
appellate court, viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff,
determines as a matter of law that the risk created by the condition was of
such a minor, trivial or insignificant nature in view of the surrounding
circumstances that no reasonable person would conclude that the condition
created a substantial risk of injury… .”].)
The
City contends Plaintiff must identify the employee acting within the scope of
employment, whose alleged act or omission caused Plaintiff’s injury. (Dem. 7-10.)
City does not cite authority requiring identification of employees and in fact,
the allegation is not required. (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High
School Dist. (2012)
53 Cal.4th 861, 872.
["… the District cites no statute or decision requiring a plaintiff to
specify at the pleading stage which of the defendant's employees
committed the negligent acts or omissions for which a public entity is
allegedly liable under section 815.2. To survive a demurrer, the complaint need
only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact
that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.”].)
Based on the foregoing, demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED.
Defendant is ordered to answer within 10 days.