Hearing Demurrer

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 23, 2021

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Selina Smith vs City of Mountain View et al Hearing Start Time: 9:00 AM 21CV380975 Hearing Type: Hearing: Demurrer Date of Hearing: 12/16/2021 Comments: 5 Heard By: Kirwan, Peter Location: Department 19 Courtroom Reporter: - No Court Reporter Courtroom Clerk: Shantel Hernandez Court Interpreter: Court Investigator: Parties Present: Future Hearings: Exhibits: - No Appearance. Tentative Ruling Not Contested. Adopted. See Below: This is an action for dangerous condition of public property arising from a June 24, 2020 motor vehicle collision that occurred on the US-101 freeway as it passes through the City of Mountain View. The original complaint by Plaintiff Selina Smith ( Plaintiff ) was filed on March 23, 2021, stating claims for negligence and dangerous condition of public property against two public entity defendants, the City of Mountain View and the Cal. Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans ). Both defendants filed demurrers to the Complaint. Plaintiff dismissed the City of Mountain View as a defendant on June 17, 2021. The operative First Amended Complaint ( FAC ) was filed on August 24, 2021, mooting the demurrers to the original complaint. The FAC states two causes of action: (1) Negligence, and; (2) Dangerous Condition of Public Property, both now alleged only against Defendant Caltrans. Currently before the Court is Defendant Caltrans demurrer to both causes of action alleged in the FAC, which is opposed by Plaintiff. Demurrer to the FAC The Court in ruling on a demurrer treats it as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Piccinini v. Cal. Emergency Management Agency (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 685, 688, citing Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading. It admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint; the question of plaintiff s ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court. (Committee on Children s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214.) Where a demurrer is to an amended complaint, the Court may consider the factual allegations of prior complaints, which a plaintiff may not discard or avoid by making contradictory averments, in a superseding, amended pleading. (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034, internal quotations omitted.) Printed: 12/17/2021 12/16/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV380975 Page 1 of4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Defendant Caltrans demurrers to the first cause of action solely on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action against Caltrans (CCP 430.10(e)) and demurrers to the second cause of action solely on the ground that it is uncertain (CCP 430.10(f). (See October 7, 2021 Demurrer at p. 321-10.) First Cause of Action Negligence Caltrans demurrer to the first cause of action on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts as alleged against it is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The claim, which is duplicative of the second cause of action (compare FAC at 14-18 with 26-30), fails as a matter of law as alleged as Caltrans. Under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, 810 et seq.), there is no common law tort liability for public entities in California; instead, such liability must be based on statute. (Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Ca|.4th 887, 897, citing Gov. Code, 815, subd. (a) [ [e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person ].) There is no statute authorizing direct negligence liability against a public entity. (See Dina v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1053; see also McCarty v. Department of Transportation (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 955, 977 [Once again, a public entity cannot be held liable for common law negligence. ].) The California Supreme Court has made very clear that Government Code 835, the basis for the FAC s second cause of action, establishes the only circumstances under which a public entity may be held liable for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition on its premises. (See Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Ca|.4th 1099, 1105, citing Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Ca|.4th. 820, 829 [section 835 sets out the exclusive conditions under which a public entity is liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property. ],' See also Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Ca|.4th 1121, 1129 [The nature and extent of a public entity's liability for an injury suffered on its property is governed by statute, specifically the California Government Claims Act. A public entity is not liable for injuries except as provided by statute, Gov. Code 815, and Gov. Code 835, sets out the exclusive conditions under which a public entity is liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property. The intent of the Act is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs in suits against governmental entities, but to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances].) Plaintiff s reliance on decisions such as C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861( C.A. ) to suggest that a negligence claim may be alleged in these circumstances is misplaced. In the C.A. decision, a case involving the sexual abuse of a minor student, the Supreme Court recognized a very limited exception to the general rule that there is no common law tort liability for public entities based on the special relationship a school district and its employees have with the minor students under their care arising from the mandatory character of school attendance and the comprehensive control over students exercised by school personnel, analogous in many ways to the relationship between parents and their children, the duty of care owed by school personnel in such circumstances includes the duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of third parties acting negligently or intentionally. (Id. at pp. 869 870.) There is no authority suggesting that any similar special relationship exists between Caltrans and motorists on freeways (the allegation in the FAC at 14 & 26 is a legal conclusion the Court does not accept as true on demurrer) and there is, as cited above, weII-established authority clearly stating that Gov. Code 835 is the Printed: 12/17/2021 12/16/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV380975 Page 2 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER sole basis under which a which a public entity can be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property. As the defect in this cause of action cannot be cured by amendment, leave to amend is properly denied. (See Schonfeldt v. State of Cal. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1465 [reviewing decision on motion for JOP: If there is no liability as a matter of law, leave to amend should not be granted. ]) Second Cause of Action Dangerous Condition of Public Property Defendant Caltrans demurrer to the second cause of action on uncertainty grounds is OVERRULED. [D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135; see also Khoury v. Maly s of Ca|., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 [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. ]) It is clear from Defendant Caltrans arguments against this claim that it understands what the second cause of action alleges, is capable of responding, and that there is no true uncertainty. Caltrans argument that the second cause of action is not (according to Caltrans) pled with the specificity required of a statutory claim is not a basis for sustaining a demurrer brought only on the ground that the cause of action is uncertain. As the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the first cause of action and overruled as to the second cause of action Caltrans is directed to file an answer to the FAC. (See CCP 472a(b).) Printed: 12/17/2021 12/16/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV380975 Page 3 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MINUTE ORDER Printed: 12/17/2021 12/16/2021 Hearing: Demurrer - 21CV380975 Page 4 of 4