Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2021-00002705-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2021-00002705-CU-PO-CTL HEITMAN VS 1315 ORANGE LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT 1315 ORANGE AVE, LLC DBA LA AVENIDA INN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is GRANTED.

Defendant 1315 ORANGE AVE, LLC DBA LA AVENIDA INN ('Defendant') seeks summary judgment against Plaintiff LAYLA HEITMAN ('Plaintiff'). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the trial court must first identify the issues framed by the pleadings, since the pleadings set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved, and the materiality of disputed facts. (Conroy v. Regents of University of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1250; Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 289-90; Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 858.) The Court then determines whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor, and if the moving party has carried its initial burden, decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Serri, supra, at p. 858.) The Court must 'liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.' (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) Defendant provides evidence that Plaintiff climbed the metal fence to exit the pool area when the gate to exit the pool area was closed and locked. (Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ['SSUMF'] Nos. 2-4.) Plaintiff slipped as she came over the fence and cut her foot on a piece of metal attached to the gate. (SSUMF No. 5.) Based on this evidence, Defendant asserts there is a lack of evidence that it breached a duty to Plaintiff and that Defendant did not cause Plaintiff's injuries.

'The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.' (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158.) 'The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm.' (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.) 'Duty is a question of law to be determined on a case-by-case basis.' (Nola M. v. University of Southern California (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 421, 426.) ''Duty' is merely a conclusory expression used when the sum total of policy considerations lead a court to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.' (Krongos v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 387, 392–393.) The Court must balance the following considerations: the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2936537  56 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HEITMAN VS 1315 ORANGE LLC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00002705-CU-PO-CTL attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.

(Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113.) 'The most important factor to consider in determining whether to create an exception to the general duty to exercise ordinary care ... is whether the injury in question was foreseeable.' (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 629 [Citation omitted].) [T]he Rowland factors are evaluated at a relatively broad level of factual generality. Thus, as to foreseeability, we have explained that the court's task in determining duty 'is not to decide whether a particular plaintiff's injury was reasonably foreseeable in light of a particular defendant's conduct, but rather to evaluate more generally whether the category of negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm experienced that liability may appropriately be imposed....' (Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 772 [Citation omitted].) Here, there are issues of fact as to whether Defendant breached a duty that Defendant owed to Plaintiff which caused Plaintiff's injuries. While Plaintiff's particular injuries may not have been reasonably foreseeable from the use of a jagged piece of exposed metal on the gate, the question as to duty is whether the kind of injury, a cut, was reasonably foreseeable from Defendant's use of a jagged piece of exposed metal on the gate. (See Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts ['AMF'] Nos. 5, 10.) It is reasonably foreseeable that a hotel patron or guest could be injured from a jagged piece of exposed metal on the gate, such as from leaning against the gate or using a leg to hold the gate open for people entering the pool area. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that there are no triable issues of fact as to whether Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff that Defendant breached – Defendant allowed a jagged piece of metal to be attached to the gate. Now the Court must analyze whether that breach of Defendant's duty was the cause of Plaintiff's injury.

'Ordinarily, proximate cause is a question of fact which cannot be decided as a matter of law from the allegations of a complaint.... Nevertheless, where the facts are such that the only reasonable conclusion is an absence of causation, the question is one of law, not of fact.' (State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court (2015) 61 Cal.4th 339, 353.) There is a two-step analysis to proximate cause: (1) but-for cause and (2) public policy considerations. (Id.) Because the purported causes of an event may be traced back to the dawn of humanity, the law has imposed additional 'limitations on liability other than simple causality.' (PPG, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp.

315–316, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 455, 975 P.2d 652.) 'These additional limitations are related not only to the degree of connection between the conduct and the injury, but also with public policy.' (Id. at p. 316, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 455, 975 P.2d 652.) Thus, 'proximate cause 'is ordinarily concerned, not with the fact of causation, but with the various considerations of policy that limit an actor's responsibility for the consequences of his conduct.' ' (Ibid., quoting Mosley v. Arden Farms Co. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 213, 221, 157 P.2d 372 (conc. opn. of Traynor, J.).) (Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1037, 1045.) ''A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.' (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 775–776 [Citation omitted].) It is undisputed that but for the existence of the jagged metal Plaintiff would not have cut her foot.

However, policy considerations support that Defendant was not the proximate cause, namely that a defendant should not be held liable for conduct that the Defendant could not reasonably foresee. While Plaintiff raises the issue that the gate was closed and locked at the time Plaintiff attempted to enter the pool area notwithstanding the fact Plaintiff's attempt was during regular pool hours when the gate should have been open, this does not negate that it is not reasonably foreseeable that a hotel patron or guest Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2936537  56 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HEITMAN VS 1315 ORANGE LLC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00002705-CU-PO-CTL would ignore the closed and locked gate and climb the fence. (AMF Nos. 8-9, 14.) Plaintiff also points to the fact the gate did not have a way to be opened from the inside in case of emergency, which could be a violation of California Building Code section 3119B2. (AMF Nos. 6-7.) However, Plaintiff just points to one gate. Plaintiff does not present evidence that the enclosure area did not have another gate that did not comply with California Building Code section 3119B2. In any event, it is not reasonably foreseeable that a hotel patron or guest would be on the inside sought that they needed an emergency gate when the enclosure is closed and locked. There is no proximate cause between the purported violation of California Building Code section 3119B2 and Plaintiff's injury. Finally, Plaintiff raises the issue that the enclosure area, which would include the gate, must be designed and constructed so that it cannot be readily climbed by small children. (Plaintiff's request for judicial notice, Exhibit A.) However, Plaintiff does not present any evidence to indicate that Plaintiff, who was 17 years old at the time, qualified as a small child. Further, Plaintiff does not explain why a five-foot height for a fence was insufficient.

For the above reasons, the Court finds allowing a jagged piece of metal to be attached to the gate did not proximately cause Plaintiff's injuries. The motion is granted. Plaintiff's requests for judicial notice are granted.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2936537  56