Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV01157, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01157    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 11-27-23

Case #22CHCV01157

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, The Emmon Company

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff, Ahmed El Masri

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         2^nd Cause of Action: Premises Liability

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On November 5, 2021, plaintiff Ahmed El Masri was riding his motorcycle on Nordhoff Street in the City of Los Angeles, when an automobile operated by defendant Alexandra Mixon and owned by defendant Teairra Marchinee, began to execute a left turn towards the oncoming motorcycle. The automobile subsequently struck the motorcycle.

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Premises Liability, Negligence, and Negligent Entrustment.

RULING

Demurrer: Overruled.

Defendant The Emmons Company submits a demurrer to the second cause of action for premises liability in the complaint on grounds of insufficient facts establishing a basis of liability against moving defendant, due to lack of ownership of the property on the site of the collision. Plaintiff in opposition maintains the complaint sufficiently articulates a basis of liability in that the parking lot utilized by the vehicle operator was owned and/or managed by moving defendant created an unsafe condition for passing motorists and/or the exit lacked sufficient warning of oncoming traffic. Defendant in reply reiterates the occurrence of the collision on a public street and off Defendant’s premises, and the complaint insufficiently articulates a dangerous condition and/or inadequate failure to warn on Defendant’s premises. Defendant also contends it lacked authority to control traffic and therefore should not be held liable for the flow of traffic.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.]

2^nd Cause of Action: Premises Liability

Defendant submits the demurrer on grounds of lack of ownership of the property, and lack of any other basis of duty to Plaintiff. Defendant also preemptively challenges any imposition of duty on the “special benefits” exception potentially imposed on an adjacent property owner. Plaintiff maintains a duty existed to the offsite property owner on grounds of failure to warn of potential traffic safety hazards.

Civil Code section 1714(a) provides in part: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” “The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)

“The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.)

“The duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.” (Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 368.) “In most instances, where there is no control over the premises, there is no duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury.” (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.) Exceptions can exist where defendant controlled property abuts a a public street, thereby creating a dangerous condition. (Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1077, 1093.)

Defendant’s argument depends on a finding that the collision occurred on a public street, where Defendant lacked any control over the actions of any and all vehicles on the street. The argument, while supported if the collision lacked any claimed origination from defendant’s controlled property [City of El Segundo v. Bright (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1375; Owens v. Kings Supermarket (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 379, 386] lacks acknowledgment of the factually pled circumstances of the subject complaint: existence of the exit placing passing vehicles in potential danger and failure to warn about left turns. [Comp., ¶¶ 32-33, 37.] (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 38-39.)

The court finds the facts sufficiently articulated, especially against the undisputed owner and entity responsible for control of the premises where the vehicle existed. The demurrer otherwise improperly relies on argument beyond the scope of the demurrer. Sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend will only fundamentally lead to more allegations on a core of facts supported by the law at the pleading stage, thereby unnecessarily delaying the action. The demurrer is therefore overruled. Defendant to answer no later than 10 days of this order.

Defendant to give notice.