Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV24321, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24321    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 29

Tentative

The Court will hear from counsel.

The Court’s tentative ruling is to grant SCE’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action for negligence against SCE. The basic elements of a cause of action for negligence are: (1) the existence of a legal duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) resulting damages. (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204, 213; Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158; Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)

The existence and scope of duty are legal questions for the court.¿¿(Brown, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 213; Annocki¿v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC¿(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 36.)¿

Here, the Second District Court of Appeal has directly and expressly spoken to this issue.  “In the absence of a contract between the utility and the consumer expressly providing for the furnishing of a service for a specific purpose, a public utility owes no duty to a person injured as a result of an interruption of service or a failure to provide service.” (White v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 442, 448.) A public utility “owes no general duty to the public to provide streetlights,” unless there are circumstances where all the following conditions exist: (1) a duty to install the streetlight, (2) the failure to maintain an installed streetlight creates a risk greater than the risk created by the total absence of a streetlight; and (3) the injured party has relied on the operation of the streetlight. (Id. at 451.)

Plaintiff’s arguments regarding why SCE should be held liable on these facts are foreclosed by White (and other case law). This ruling from the Court of Appeal is dispositive.