Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV07438, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV07438 Hearing Date: September 12, 2022 Dept: 29
Eduardo Elizarraras v. Dora Sanchez
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant Dora Sanchez
TENTATIVE
Defendant Dora Sanchez’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.) Courts “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.)
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.)
Evidentiary Objections
Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s
Evidence:
·
The
following objections are SUSTAINED: 2
Vehicle Code
section 20013 specifically precludes accident reports from being used as
evidence in any civil action. (Veh.
Code, § 20013; see also People v. Flaxman
(1977) 74 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16, 20.)
·
The
following objections are OVERRULED: 1
Discussion
Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing
that she did not breach any duty, and that Plaintiff caused the Subject
Accident by making an improper and illegal U-Turn from the far right lane
directly in front of Defendant’s vehicle without checking to make sure it was
clear to make that U-Turn.
Negligence and Motor Vehicle Negligence
The elements of a
cause of action for negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages.¿¿(Castellon
v. U.S. Bancorp¿(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) However, the elements
of breach of that duty and causation are ordinarily questions of fact for the
jury's determination. [Citation.] Nevertheless, causation may be a question of
law if on undisputed facts there can be no reasonable difference of opinion on
causal nexus.” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th
1133, 1139.)
Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff
testified that he was working for a car dealership at the time of the accident,
and driving a car to a parking/holding lot where he would drive almost every
day. (UMF 4.) Plaintiff testified that the subject accident happened between
your driving from 5100 Triggs Street to the parking/holding lot. (UMF 5.) Plaintiff testified that he attempted to
make a U-turn into the parking/holding lot. (UMF 6.) Plaintiff testified that
he made a U-turn “[b]ecause I was just going to park into the holding lot. So
it was, like, go into the driveway, park in a little bit to see how the lot is
doing and then come back out and go back to the 5100 Triggs.” (UMF 7.)
Plaintiff testified that he does not recall if he slowed down before making the
U-turn. (UMF 9.) Plaintiff testified that where the subject accident occurred
was a commercial/business zone. (See, UMF 10.) Plaintiff testified that where he
made a U-turn there was not an intersection. (See, UMF 12.) Defendant argues
that Plaintiff violated Vehicle
Code Section 22102, which states that “no person in a business district shall
make a U-turn, except at an intersection, or on a divided highway where an
opening has been provided...this turning movement shall be made as close as
practicable to the extreme left-hand edge of the lanes moving in the driver’s
direction of travel immediately prior to the initiation of the turning
movement...”
The Court finds
that Defendant has not met her burden on summary judgment to show that no
triable issues of fact exist as to breach and causation. “The operator of a
vehicle must keep a proper lookout for other vehicles or persons on the highway
and must keep his car under such control as will enable him to avoid a
collision; failure to keep such a lookout constitutes negligence.” (Downing
v. Barrett Mobile Home Transp., Inc. (1974) 38 Cal. App. 3d 519, 524.)
Defendant has not presented any evidence regarding her own conduct in order for
the Court to make a determination as to whether she has met her burden to show
that she was not negligent. The complaint alleges that Defendant operated her
vehicle without caution. No evidence has been presented to negate the element
of breach.
As to 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.)
Again, Defendant has
not presented any evidence regarding her own conduct. The question
is whether Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the
injury, but there is no evidence of Defendant’s conduct. Was Defendant watching
her surroundings? Was Defendant going the speed limit? Without this evidence,
Defendant has not met her burden of proof. Moreover, while Defendant argues that Plaintiff testified
that he did not check for other vehicles before making a U-turn, the Court notes
that the evidence cited does not say that. The evidence cited actually shows
that Plaintiff did check to make sure it was clear before making a U-turn.
(Plaintiff’s Depo., 55-56.) Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff
testified that he made a U-turn in front of Defendant’s vehicle, however, the
evidence only states that Plaintiff made a U-turn, not that he made a U-turn in
front of Defendant’s vehicle. (Id., 19-20.)
As a result,
because Defendant has not met her burden, the burden does not shift to
Plaintiff. Summary judgment is DENIED.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is DENIED.
Defendant is
ordered to give notice.