Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV15708, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV15708 Hearing Date: May 21, 2025 Dept: 29
Carter v. Home Depot U.S.A.
23STCV15708
Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant Samsung Electronics America,
Inc.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On July 6, 2023, Jessie L. Carter (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”), Samsung
Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”), and Does 1 through 25, asserting causes of
action for negligence and product liability arising out of an incident on or about
July 17, 2021, in which, Plaintiff alleges, she was injured when a defective
refrigerator door fell on her.
On August 30, 2023, Home Depot filed an
answer.
On September 18, 2023, Samsung filed an
answer.
On October 26, 2023, Home Depot filed a
notice of removal to U.S. District Court. On January 25, 2024, the District
Court issued an order of remand.
On September 13, 2024, Samsung filed this
motion for summary judgment.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
“The purpose
of the law of summary judgment 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.) “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
cause of action as framed by the complaint, a defendant moving for summary
judgment or summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by
presenting facts to show “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, subd. (p)(2); see also Aguilar, supra,
25 Cal.4th at pp. 850-851; 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 the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 437c, subd. (p)(2); see also Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp.
850-851.)
A plaintiff or
cross-complainant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must
satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to show “that there is
no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the
cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has
met that burden, the burden shift to the defendant or cross-defendant to show
that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of
action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.)
The party
opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not simply
“rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings” but must instead “set
forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (p)(1) & (p)(2). 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.)
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.)
Discussion
Samsung moves for summary judgment as to
Plaintiff’s complaint.
In early July 2021, Plaintiff purchased a Samsung
refrigerator from Home Depot. (Defendant Samsung’s Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts [“DSUMF”], No. 1.) Home Depot delivered the refrigerator to
Plaintiff’s residence. (DSUMF, No 2.)
The refrigerator did not fit through any of the
doors at Plaintiff’s residence. (DSUMF, No. 3.) Home Depot’s employees or
contractors removed the door of the refrigerator, brought the refrigerator and
the refrigerator door inside, and then reinstalled the door of the refrigerator.
(DSUMF, Nos. 4, 6-8.) When they reinstalled the door, however, the Home Depot
installers failed to put all of the screws back into the refrigerator door.
(DSUMF, No. 8.)
Shortly thereafter, the door of the refrigerator
fell on Plaintiff and injured her. (DSUMF, No. 9.)
Samsung had no involvement in the removal or
reinstallation of the refrigerator door. (DSUMF, Nos. 2, 6, 12-19.) The door
was factory installed: when the refrigerator left Samsung’s control, the door
was attached. (DSUMF, No. 18.)
In her complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of
action for negligence and products liability against Samsung. Samsung now moves
for summary judgment.
Negligence
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.) “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 ...” (Civ. Code, § 1714.)
Samsung
has met its burden, as a defendant moving for summary judgment, of presenting
facts to show that one or more of the elements of the negligence cause of
action cannot be established: Samsung has presented evidence to show that it did
not owe a duty to Plaintiff, did not breach any duty owed to Plaintiff, and did
not cause the injuries sustained by Plaintiff. Plaintiff was injured when an
improperly installed refrigerator door fell on her. (DSUMF, Nos. 8-9.) The
improper installation was done by the employees or contractors of Home Depot.
(DSUMF, Nos. 4, 6, 8.) Samsung had no involvement in this improper
installation. (DSUMF, Nos. 2, 6, 8, 12-19.)
This
evidence shifts the burden on summary judgment to Plaintiff to show that there
are triable issues of fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or
otherwise done so.
Samsung
has shown that the negligence cause of action against Samsung in the complaint has
no merit.
Products Liability
The term “products liability” refers to a multi-faceted “area of the law involving the liability of those who supply goods or products for the use of others to purchasers, users, and bystanders for losses of various kinds resulting from so-called defects in those products.” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 478; accord Johnson v. United States Steel Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 22, 30.) A plaintiff may seek relief on a products liability cause of action based on a theory of strict liability or of negligence. (Merrill, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 478; Jimenez v. Sears (1971) 4 Cal.3d 379, 387.) “[U]nder either a negligence or a strict liability theory of products liability … a plaintiff must prove that a defect caused injury.” (Merrill, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 479; accord Soule v. GM Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 560.) “Under a negligence theory, a plaintiff must also prove an additional element, namely that the defect in the product was due to the negligence of the defendant.” (Merrill, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 479; accord Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1304-1305.)
California recognizes three primary types of product defects:
manufacturing defects, design defects, and inadequate warnings (“warning
defects”). (Webb v. Special Electric Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 180-181;
Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995; Brown
v. Super. Ct. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1057.)
Samsung has met
its initial burden, as a defendant moving for summary judgment, of presenting facts
to show that one or more of the elements of the strict liability cause of
action cannot be established. Samsung has shown that there was no manufacturing
defect, no design defect, and no failure to warn. As noted above, Plaintiff was
injured after Home Depot’s installers took apart the refrigerator manufactured
by Samsung and failed to reinstall the refrigerator door properly. (DSUMF,
Nos. 2, 4, 6-9.)
This
evidence shifts the burden on summary judgment to Plaintiff to show that there
are triable issues of fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or
otherwise done so.
Samsung
has shown that the strict liability cause of action against Samsung in the
complaint has no merit.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is
granted.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment
filed by Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Moving Party is to give notice.