Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV16805, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16805    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 1, 2020, plaintiff Carlos Breton Torres (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants ABSS Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“ABSS”), Sunset Ladder Co., Inc. (“Sunset”) and Santa Clarita Studios, Corp. (“Defendant”) (erroneously sued as “Santa Clarita Studios, Inc.”).  Plaintiff alleges that on August 14, 2019, he was properly utilizing a ladder supplied by Defendant when a rung on the ladder broke, causing him to fall and sustain physical injuries.  (Compl., Second Cause of Action, p. 5.)  Plaintiff contends Defendant was negligent in failing to provide a safe ladder to use. 

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding a cause of action for products liability, including counts for strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied and express warranty. 

On July 1, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.  Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot establish that its acts or omissions were a substantial factor in his injuries and that Plaintiff cannot prove that it breached its limited duty of care. 

II.          FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant is a full-service independent studio consisting of 32 sound stages.  (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) No. 3.)  Defendant provides a rental facility for television and motion picture production companies and does not have any creative control of any rented sets and is uninvolved in the productions.  (UMF No. 3.)  On July 14, 2019, Defendant rented Stage 26 and Stage 27 to Woodridge Productions, Inc. (“Woodridge”), for the television production, “Party of Five.”  (UMF No. 4.)  Defendant provides production companies with the option to rent studio equipment for their sets. 

On August 1, 2019, Woodridge rented a number of items from Defendant, including 8’ foot double front-step ladders.  (UMF No. 5.)  Sometime before August 14, 2019, Defendant purchased ABSS Type 1A, FD108, 8’ fiberglass double-front stepladders from Sunset.  (UMF No. 6.)  ABSS manufactured the ladder and Sunset is a distributor of ladders for ABSS.  (UMF No. 6.) 

Plaintiff had been working on the “Party of Five” set for weeks as a union propmaker before the accident.  (UMF No. 12.)  On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff was asked by Woodridge’s prop foreman, Tony White, to remove a twelve-foot long wooden beam from the ceiling.  (UMF No. 12.)  The beam was 12 feet long, 12 inches high, and 10 inches wide.  (UMF No. 13. )  It weighed approximately anywhere from 70-80 pounds.  (UMF No. 13.)  Plaintiff choose to use one of the newly purchased ABSS 8'foot double-front stepladders to complete the task.  (UMF No. 14.)  The weight capacity of the ladder was 300 pounds.  (UMF No. 13.)  

Plaintiff ascended the ladder to inspect how to remove the wooden beam.  (UMF No. 18.)  He visually inspected the wooden beam and descended the ladder without incident.  (UMF No. 18.)  On his second attempt, he ascended the ladder, again, without incident.  (UMF No. 18.)  He and his partner, Travis Kastigar, who was on a separate ladder, removed the beam from the ceiling.  (UMF No. 19.)  Plaintiff began his second descent down the ladder with the wooden beam on his shoulder while Kastigar stayed at the top of his ladder holding the other end of the beam.  (UMF No. 20.)  The weight of the beam was predominantly on Plaintiff.  (UMF No. 20.)  As he descended the ladder, Plaintiff was holding the wooden beam on his shoulder with one hand.  (UMF No. 21.)  On the second step to the bottom, Plaintiff fell forward and lost his balance from the step.  (UMF No. 23.)  An inspection revealed that a rivet was missing from the second step of the ladder; it is unclear when the rivet fell out of the ladder.  (UMF Nos. 24-25.)  

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 facia 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

Having found that Defendant failed to meet its moving burden, the Court declines to rule on Defendant’s evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s evidence submitted in opposition to its motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)  The Court also declines to rule on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections to Defendant’s evidence on reply.  (See id.) 

V.           DISCUSSION

A.   Summary Judgment

Defendant first argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff cannot prove that its actions or omissions were the proximate or actual cause of his injury.  To prevail on a cause of action for negligence or products liability, a plaintiff must show that a connection between the defendant’s breach or product’s defect and plaintiff’s injury.  Defendant contends that Plaintiff does not have, and cannot reasonably obtain, admissible evidence to prove that its acts or omissions were a substantial factor of his injuries because Plaintiff cannot show that the missing rivet caused his injuries and that Defendant caused the rivet to break.   

Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot prove that the missing rivet caused his injuries.  Defendant points out that Plaintiff never explicitly references the rivet in his deposition and instead described his accident as some “mishap” where he “end[ed] up falling forward” and “lost [his] balance from the step.”  (Ex. K, 31:9-12.)  Also, Defendant’s expert, Ned Wolfe (“Wolfe”), testified that the rivet was not a causal factor in Plaintiff’s fall because the rivet was missing on the in-board side.  Wolfe states that for each rung of the ladder there is a total of six rivets , including two out-board rivets on each side of the rung (four total) and two single in-board rivets, pinning it to the side rails.  (Wolfe Decl., ¶ 7D.)  Wolfe testifies that a missing rive on the in-board side is “barely noticeable” when ascending or descending a lady when used properly, and states that he was able to climb the ladder with his full weight on the second rung and ascend and descend the ladder without issue.  (Ibid.) 

Defendant has not met its burden to show that no triable issues of material fact exist.  Plaintiff testified that he lost his balance because the step on the ladder bent down, specifically the front of the step with his heel on it.  (Ex. K, 51:4-18.)  In light of this testimony, Defendant’s emphasis on Plaintiff’s conduct as the cause of his injuries is a matter of contributory negligence and comparative fault for the factfinder to determine. 

As for Defendant’s argument that there is no evidence that its actions caused the rivet to go missing, Defendant argues that it may rely on factually devoid discovery responses to shift the burden of proof.  (See Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.)  Frustratingly, Defendant did not cite to any particular special interrogatories and instead cites to Exhibit E, which it claims contains Plaintiff’s responses to its interrogatories requesting Plaintiff to identify “all facts, witnesses, and documents in support of his individual claims.”  (Motion, 7:22-24.)  Plaintiff’s discovery responses take up 52 pages and Defendant apparently believes that the Court should review the entire document and select which particular discovery requests and responses Defendant intended to cite to as evidence.  The Court declines to do Defendant’s work for them, finding instead that Defendant has not shifted the burden onto Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact because Defendant has not shown which of Plaintiff’s responses are “factually devoid”. 

B.   Summary Adjudication

In the alternative, Defendant moves for summary adjudication of each cause of action. 

a.    Negligence

Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence because Plaintiff has no evidence to show that it breached its duty of care.  Defendant contends that it only had to perform a “reasonable inspection” and when it inspected the ladder, all screws, rivets, and bolts were present in the ladder.  As evidence, Defendant cites to the deposition testimony of Michael Thorpe (“Thorpe”) (Exhibit M) and Glenn La Rocco (“La Rocco”) (Exhibit N).  Defendant contends each ladder had its tape removed from the legs, was fully opened, leveled, and visually checked before being sent over to Woodbridge.  (Ex. M, 18:23-9:3.)  La Rocco states that he or another grip associate would be responsible for visually inspecting equipment purchased by Defendant before it was sent out to a production company and describes the inspection as follows: “The inspection process of the ladder is there is tape on the very bottom step.  We cut that, and as soon as we cut that, we spread the ladder open, and we make sure to see if it’s level.  And if it is level, then we just close it back up and put it to – either put it away or put it to the side for an order.”  (Ex. N, 35:19-25.)  La Rocco says he was told to “make sure nothing is broken, nothing is loose.  Make sure it’s, you know, good to use.”  (Ex. N, 32:15-17.)  Defendant contends that its visual inspection was sufficient, but this is an issue for the factfinder to determine.  Defendant cites to no cases allowing the Court to conclude, as a matter of law, that a company who rents out equipment must only perform a visual inspection of that equipment. 

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence is DENIED.

b.    Products Liability

Defendant characterizes Plaintiff’s counts for strict products liability, negligence products liability, and general warranty products liability as  “causes of action” even though they are counts that are part of a cause of action for products liability, i.e., three separate theories of liability.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s products liability cause of action fails on a theory of negligence because, as stated above, there is no evidence of causation or a breach of duty.  However, just as the Court found those arguments insufficient to warrant summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action, here, too, those arguments are insufficient to show that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his products liability claim on a theory of negligence.  A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)  Because the cause of action for products liability cannot be completely disposed of, the Court cannot grant Defendant’s summary adjudication on this cause of action as requested in Defendant’s Notice of Motion. 

VI.     CONCLUSION

          In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication is DENIED.

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.