Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2022-00003996-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 05, 2024

06/07/2024  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 - Auto Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00003996-CU-PA-CTL DOLPHIN VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY AJUDICATION is DENIED.

Defendant City of San Diego ('Defendant') challenges Plaintiff JEFFREY S. DOLPHIN's ('Plaintiff') claims based on the assertion that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate causation. 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.) 'If a party contends some particular issue of fact has no support in the record, it must set forth all the material evidence on the point and not merely the evidence favorable to it.' (Rio Linda Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 732, 740.) 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.) The one issue before the Court is causation.

' '[C]ausation ... is ordinarily a question of fact which cannot be resolved by summary judgment. The issue of causation may be decided as a question of law only if, under undisputed facts, there is no room for a reasonable difference of opinion. [Citation.]' [Citation.]' (Kurinji v. Hanna & Morton (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 853, 864, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 324.) Causation must be established by nonspeculative evidence.

(Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 774, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 23 P.3d 1143; Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1515, 1525, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 123 ['speculative inferences do not raise a triable issue of fact'].) (Kaney v. Custance (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 201, 212.) A plaintiff need not remember the incident to establish liability if there is evidence that 'gives rise to a reasonable and probable inference that the defendant's negligence was a substantial contributing factor' in causing the incident. (Id. at 217.) The Court agrees Defendant was required to address evidence other than Plaintiff's testimony as to being unable to recall the incident, given that Defendant should have been in possession of the Traffic Collision Report for Plaintiff's accident and complaints about the road condition where the incident occurred. The Traffic Collision Report for Plaintiff's accident, especially in conjunction with other evidence, raises triable issues of fact. (Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts ['AMF'] Nos. 2-14.) 'Although a finding of causation may not be based on mere speculation or conjecture, such finding may be predicated on reasonable inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.' (City of Modesto v. Dow Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3115446  50 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DOLPHIN VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2022-00003996-CU-PA-CTL Chemical Co. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 130, 153 [Citation omitted].) Defendant did not address the circumstantial evidence that would lend support to Plaintiff's position of causation. The Court finds Plaintiff has raised triable issues of fact as to whether Plaintiff will be able to establish causation. (See Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts No. 5; AMF Nos 1-84.) The motion is denied.

Defendant's Objections to DECLARATION OF GARY M. GSELL: Objections 1-7, 9-13: Overruled.

Objection 8: Sustained.

Objection 14: Sustained as to the legal conclusion 'The bump caused the accident.' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3115446  50