Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00027213-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 02, 2023

11/03/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00027213-CU-PO-CTL PLATA MATIAS VS CARNIVAL SUPERMARKET INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 08/18/2023

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (ROA 19.) Defendant asserts it had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition, a slippery substance on the floor, before Plaintiff's slip and fall incident occurred. The court finds there are material triable issues of fact as to both actual and constructive knowledge. (Pltf. Sep. Stmt. Add'l Facts at ¶¶ 10-13, 15-16, 21.) Defendant also asserts it had no duty to Plaintiff because Plaintiff has 'no evidence' of a liquid substance on the floor that caused her to slip and fall. This argument appears to misperceive the concept of duty. Since plaintiff was an invitee to Defendant's store, Defendant clearly owed her a duty of care to make the premises safe while she was shopping. Defendant's arguments go instead to whether it breached this duty, see, e.g., Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403, 432, and they fail for the same reasons that the arguments that it had no actual or constructive knowledge of the liquid do. Contrary to Defendant's assertion that there is no evidence of a liquid substance on the floor, Defendant's supporting evidence includes Plaintiff's deposition testimony describing the slippery substance. (Def. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 17-18.) Accordingly, there are material triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment on this issue as well. (Pltf. Sep. Stmt. Add'l Facts at ¶¶ 7-13, 15-16, 21.) See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-51.

'In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need only rule on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q).) Here, even considering all of Defendant's evidence as if it were admissible, Defendant would not be entitled to summary judgment. For example, while the statement of Mr. De la Rosa that Mr. Hernandez told him that he had swept the floor and did not see any slippery substance appears to be inadmissible hearsay, Plaintiff's testimony that there was a slippery substance would create a triable issue of fact even if Mr. Hernandez's statements were admitted. Plaintiff has also submitted evidence sufficient to support a conclusion that the actions taken by Mr. Hernandez would not have adequately addressed a liquid substance, so admitting his hearsay statements as to the actions he took would not eliminate a triable issue of fact in that regard either. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections to Defendant's evidence are not material to the disposition of the motion and need not be ruled upon.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041232  6