Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV43802, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV43802 Hearing Date: September 26, 2022 Dept: 29
Motion
for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TENTATIVE
Defendant Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Legal Standard
The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to
allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary
support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal
without the need for trial. (Aguilar v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP Section 437c(c)
“requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence
submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and
uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, 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.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of
the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the
issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether
there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the
pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima
(1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)
As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for
summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts
to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Scalf
v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520. )
Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the
plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as
to that cause of action or a defense thereto.
To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the
motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau
(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)
“The defendant
may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the
plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that
the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed
evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery
to the effect that he has discovered nothing. But… the defendant must indeed
present evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
25 Cal.4th 826, 855, original italics.)
Judicial
Notice
The court must
consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to
which objections have been made and sustained by the court. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 437c(c).) Therefore, Defendant’s request is unnecessary and the
Court declines to rule on the request.
Evidentiary Objections
Plaintiff’s
Objections to Defendant’s Evidence
· The following objections are overruled: 1-6
·
The following
objections are sustained: n/a
Discussion
“The
Government Claims Act establishes the limits of common law liability for public
entities, stating: ‘Except as otherwise provided by statute: (a) A public
entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or
omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.’ The
Legislative Committee Comment to section 815 states: ‘This section abolishes
all common law or judicially declared forms of liability for public entities,
except for such liability as may be required by the state or federal
constitution, e.g., inverse condemnation…’ (Miklosy v. The Regents of the
University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899 (Citations Omitted).
See also Id. (confirming Government Code §815 abolishes common law tort
liability for public entities).)
Government Code
section 835 states:¿“Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable
for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff
establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the
injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that
the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of
injury which was incurred, and either:
(a) A negligent or
wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope
of his employment created the dangerous condition; or¿
(b) The public entity had actual or
constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient
time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the
dangerous condition.”¿
Negligence
First, Defendant
argues that Plaintiff has no evidence of any negligence by Metro. However,
Defendant has not presented any evidence to support this argument. “The defendant may, but need not, present
evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff's cause of
action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does
not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through
admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he
has discovered nothing. But… the defendant must indeed
present evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
25 Cal.4th 826, 855, original italics.) As such, the burden does not shift
to Plaintiff to show triable issues of fact as to whether it has any evidence
of Defendant’s negligence.
Causation
A court may grant
summary judgment when there is no triable issue of material fact regarding
causation only when there is no other reasonable conclusion. (Kurinij
v. Hanna & Morton (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 853, 864.) To
demonstrate actual or legal causation in negligence action, plaintiff is
required to show that the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in
bringing about the injury. (Sandoval v. Bank of America (2002) 94 Cal.
App. 4th 1378, 1385.) Framed another way, the plaintiff must show that it was
“more probable than not” that the defendant’s conduct was cause in fact of the
result. (Sandoval, supra, 94 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1384.)
While not directly
stating so, it appears Defendant is arguing that Plaintiff’s injuries were not
caused by any negligent act or omission by Defendant, but by Plaintiff’s own
choices. Defendant argues that Plaintiff admitted during his deposition that he
was aware that there was another elevator on the other side of the street, but
he decided to use the stairs instead of that elevator. (UMF No. 2.) Defendant
thus argues that Plaintiff admitted that he had options and he could have
walked across the street to use another elevator, but simply chose not to do so
and took the stairs instead. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff also admitted
in his deposition that there was nothing wrong with the steps and that he fell
because he was dizzy and lost his balance. (UMF No. 5.) Lastly, Defendant
argues that the video evidence shows that Plaintiff was not using his prescribed
cane to prevent falling from dizziness. (UMF No. 9.)
First, there is evidence that Plaintiff,
who is disabled, did not feel comfortable crossing the street to take the
alternative elevator, and felt it was too far. (Price Depo., 83:11- 15). As such, simply because he knew there was an
operable elevator across the street is not enough to show that
Defendant’s alleged negligence of failing to provide an operable elevator at
the instant location did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries. Second, the
allegations in the complaint are that Plaintiff is disabled and as a
result of the elevator being out of service, he had to take the
stairs and was injured as a result. Plaintiff may reasonably assert the fact that he was dizzy is the very reason why an elevator should have been operable to Plaintiff, so that he could
avoid taking the stairs and avoid an injury. Therefore, Defendant’s arguments
that there was nothing wrong with the steps and he fell because he was dizzy
are unavailing. As is Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff was not using his
cane at the time of the incident, as Plaintiff testified that a cane was recommended
by his doctor, and not prescribed. It is speculative to say that a cane
would have prevented Plaintiff’s fall. As such, Defendant’s evidence is not
sufficient to meet its burden on summary judgment to show that there are no
triable issues as to whether its alleged negligence caused Plaintiff’s
injuries.
Statutory
Bases for Plaintiff’s Causes of Action Against Governmental Entity
Defendant next
argues that because it is a governmental entity, there is no statutory basis
for Plaintiff’s claims against it. However, Plaintiff’s theories are dangerous
condition of public property under Government Code section 835, violation of
the Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified at Civil Code sections 51 and 52, and Violation of Disabled Persons Act,
codified at Civil Code section 54. As such, Plaintiff’s claims are statutory causes of action,
and not based on common law torts.
Conclusion
Based on the
foregoing, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.