Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV47195 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV47195, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47195 Hearing Date: January 19, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) “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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; Code Civ. Proc., §437c(c).)

Discussion

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.”¿¿

Defendant first argues that no dangerous condition existed at the time of Plaintiff’s fall. Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff testified at his deposition that the stairway did not exhibit any physical defects, cracks or uneven surfaces. Plaintiff only contends that liquid on the stairway caused him to fall. (Undisputed Fact “UF” No. 5) Plaintiff testified that he looks at where he is going when walking down on stairs, in general, yet he did not see any liquid on the stairs as he descended and does not recall seeing any liquid on the stairs after he fell. (UF No. 6.) A security guard named, Robert Trani, who witnessed Plaintiff’s fall, documented in a security report that he was "able to see [Plaintiff’s] feet clearly and did not see anything that caused [Plaintiff] to stumble..." (UF No. 7.) Plaintiff testified to noticing liquid on his buttocks area only after entering an ambulance. (UF No. 8.) Plaintiff does not recall whether his bottom touched the ground when he fell. (UF No. 9.) Plaintiff could not recall where the liquid from his buttocks came from. (UF No. 10.) Plaintiff admits that he was standing at the time an officer arrived to the scene of the incident and that he did not roll down from the stairs. (UF No. 11.) Lastly, custodians or maintenance staff of the Community Center did not submit any reports about spills of liquid on the stairway occurring on March 5, 2020. (UF No. 19.)

The Court finds that Defendant has presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof on summary judgment to show that no triable issues of fact exist as to whether Plaintiff can prove a dangerous condition existed. As the Court stated in Beuhler v. Alpha Beta Company (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 729, 734, “Conjecture that the floor might have been too slippery at the location where appellant happened to fall is mere speculation which is legally insufficient to defeat a summary judgment. Accordingly, all appellant can argue is that she slipped and fell…She did not see anything on the floor which caused her to slip and fall and did not know what caused her to slip. In such a situation, ‘[n]egligence is never presumed.’ Nor did the facts here indicate negligence, either directly or indirectly through any circumstances from which it might be inferred. The trial court properly found that no triable issue of any material fact existed and that respondent was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” (Id.) The same conclusion must be found here. Based on the evidence presented, Plaintiff does not know what caused him to fall. He did not see any liquid on the floor, before or after his fall, no incident reports were submitted about any spills, and the security guard who wrote his incident report stated he did not see anything that could have caused Plaintiff’s fall. While Plaintiff testified there was liquid on his pants, he only felt the liquid once he was in the ambulance. However, there are many reasons why his pants could have gotten wet in the ambulance, and to surmise that it was because there was liquid on the floor is speculation which is legally insufficient to beat summary judgment. (Beuhler v. Alpha Beta Company, surpa, 224 Cal.App.3d at 734.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to meet his own burden to show triable issues of fact. As a result, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

The Court need not address the remaining arguments.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.