Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV43782, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV43782    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On December 4, 2019, plaintiff Richard H. Guerra (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) asserting causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence. 

On January 21, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment.  Defendant argues that there are no triable issues of material fact because: (1) there is video evidence contradicting Plaintiff’s allegations, (2) Defendant was not negligent, and (3) Plaintiff’s allegations are inconsistent with his theory of the incident as alleged in the claim for damages presented to Defendant prior to filing this action. 

II.          FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was a passenger on Defendant’s bus on January 5, 2019.  (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 1.)  On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a Claim for Damages alleging he was injured on January 5, 2019 when Plaintiff boarded the bus using a walker and asked the driver to wait until he was seated, but the bus operator disregarded his request and accelerated causing Plaintiff to fall.  (UMF No. 2.)  On December 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed his lawsuit alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against alleging the defendants breached their duties when they failed to ensure that Plaintiff was safely seated prior to driving the bus.  (UMF No. 3.) 

III.        LEGAL STANDARD

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie 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, subd. (p)(2).)  A moving defendant need not conclusively negate an element of plaintiff’s cause of action.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.) It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence.  (Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.)  The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.”  (Ibid.)  The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.  (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)

“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).)  The plaintiff may not merely rely on allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action.”  (Ibid.)  “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.)

IV.         EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Defendant’s Evidentiary Objection to Paragraph 8 of the Declaration of Richard H. Guerra: Sustained.

Defendant’s Evidentiary Objection to Paragraph 10 of the Declaration of Richard H. Guerra: Overruled.

V.           DISCUSSION

A.   Substantial Compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s “factual allegations now differ from those set forth in his Claim for damages.”  (Motion, 8:4-5.)  “Government Code section 945.4 requires, as a prerequisite to maintenance of an action against a public entity for damages arising out of an alleged tort, the timely filing of a claim, and its rejection. Section 910 provides that the claim must include a general description of the injuries and the names of the public employees who caused them. Furthermore, ‘If a plaintiff relies on more than one theory of recovery against the [governmental agency], each cause of action must have been reflected in a timely claim. In addition, the factual circumstances set forth in the written claim must correspond with the facts alleged in the complaint; even if the claim were timely, the complaint is vulnerable to a demurrer [or motion for judgment on the pleadings] if it alleges a factual basis for recovery which is not fairly reflected in the written claim.”  (Fall River Joint Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 431, 434.)  A plaintiff may not allege a set of facts “entirely different from those first ntoiced.”  (Id. at pp. 435.)  The court determines whether “there is sufficient information disclosed on the face of the filed claim to reasonably enable the public entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it without the expense of a lawsuit.”  (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 447, 456.) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s action must be dismissed because his claim for damages set forth different allegations.  However, Defendant cites to Plaintiff’s deposition, not the Complaint, as evidence.  Plaintiff’s pre-litigation claim describes the incident as follows: “Claimant boarded bus and asked driver to wait until he was seated, but driver accelerated, causing Claimant to fall.”  (Exhibit List, Ex. 1.)  When asked what particular act or omission caused him damage, Plaintiff wrote: “Claimant is handicapped and uses a walker to ambulate.  Driver was aware of Claimant’s handicap and should have heeded his request to wait until he was seated.”  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint are largely the same as Plaintiff alleges he was “physically handicapped” and “asked the driver of the Bus . . . to wait until [he] was seated.”  (Exhibit List, Ex. 2, GN-1.)  Plaintiff also alleges that the driver “was aware of [his] handicap but failed to heed ]his] request to briefly wait and accelerated before [he] had an opportunity to sit down, causing [him] to fall and injure himself.”  (Ibid.) 

The factual allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s claim for damages and Plaintiff’s Complaint are not so “entirely different” such that Defendant did not have notice of Plaintiff’s theory of liability.  Instead, Defendant is arguing that the actual factual narrative is not reflected in Plaintiff’s prelitigation claim.  Therefore, Defendant’s reliance on Falls River is misplaced.  Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on this ground is DENIED.

B.   Whether Defendant was Negligent and Whether the Video Footage Contradicts Plaintiff’s Version of Events

Defendant also argues that it was not negligent.  Defendant refers to Plaintiff’s deposition and claims that Plaintiff admitted “he was walking on the moving bus without holding onto anything, pushing a wire cart full of food, and carrying a cup of tea.”  (Motion, 6:5-6.)  Defendant states that Plaintiff fell a significant distance from the front of the bus, having passed numerous empty seats, and “admits that he was never planning on sitting down, did not hold onto any pole, rail, or stanchion, and routinely walks on moving busses without holding on.”  (Motion, 6:6-10.)  Further, Defendant argues it was not negligent because video footage shows that after another vehicle cuts off the bus causing the operator to apply the brakes and that “[a]pplying brakes and avoiding a collision does not amount to negligence.”  (Motion, 6:11-13.)  Defendant argues that “[h]ad Plaintiff been holding onto something, it is likely the fall would not have occurred.”  Therefore, Defendant contends, Plaintiff cannot establish that there was a breach of legal duty by the bus driver. 

Defendant fails to meet its burden to show no triable issue of material fact exists as to whether it breached its duty of care to Plaintiff.  Defendant submits a video recording showing the events of the day from 10:35:32 a.m. to 11:22:54 a.m.  Not only does defense counsel’s declaration fail to authenticate the source of the video footage, at no point does Defendant identify which part of this video is relevant to this motion.  It appears that Defendant expects the Court to do its work for it and watch over 50 minutes worth of footage to guess which part of this video depicts Plaintiff or the car which the bus driver was purportedly braking for.  The Court declines to do so.  Additionally, Defendant’s emphasis on Plaintiff’s failure to hold onto anything is an issue of comparative fault. 

C.   Whether Defendant Caused Plaintiff’s Injuries

Defendant’s last argument concerns the element of causation.  In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the bus driver failed to ensure that Plaintiff was safely seated prior to driving the bus.  (Exhibit List, Ex. 2, GN-1.)  Defendant refers to Plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which he was asked whether he was planning to take a seat or stand on the bus.  Plaintiff said that he was planning to “stand in the back the way [he] always do[es], by the door where people get off.”  (Exhibit List, Ex. C, 21:19-21.)  In light of this testimony, the bus driver’s alleged failure to wait did not cause Plaintiff to fall and sustain injuries.  

Plaintiff does not address this issue of causation and ignores the excerpt of his deposition testimony that Defendant cited.  Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of material fact. 

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.