News - Tharpe & Howell - Litigation and Transaction Lawyers

SEVAN GOBEL WINS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON APPEAL!

The California Court of Appeal recently overturned a State Court's denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tharpe & Howell litigator Sevan Gobel in relation to a premises liability, negligent security case. In its unanimous decision filed on April 18, 2006, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate directing the Superior Court to set aside its order denying the Firm's Motion for Summary Judgment and to issue a new order granting the Motion.

In the underlying action, plaintiff sought to hold the Firm's property owner client liable in negligence for loss of property as a result of plaintiff's claim that while shopping at the property owner's store, her wallet was stolen by an unidentified Hispanic male and an unidentified Hispanic female accomplice. Plaintiff claimed that Firm's property owner client “failed to take adequate safety or security precautions to protect against these foreseeable criminal acts.”

In moving for summary judgment, Tharpe & Howell litigator Sevan Gobel contended that plaintiff could not present any evidence which establishes that the Firm's property owner client owed and/or breached any duty of care to protect plaintiff from the acts of third parties while she was present on the subject premises, therefore failing to state a cause of action for premises liability based on the principles set forth in Lopez v. McDonald's Corp., 193 Cal. App. 3d 495 (1987), and Nicole M. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 76 Cal. App. 4th 1238 (1999). In addition, attorney Gobel contended that plaintiff cannot present any evidence which establishes a causal connection between any act or omission by the Firm's property owner client and her claimed loss (i.e. causation), therefore failing to state a cause of action for premises liability based on the principles set forth in Nola M. v. University of Southern California, 16 Cal. App.4th 421 (1993) and Saelzler v Advance Group 400, et al., 25 Cal.4th 763 (2001).

On January 17, 2006, the Trial Court expressed its intention to deny the Firm's Motion for Summary Judgment based on a “lack of any evidence presented by moving party ... to show that there is no causation,” and stated that the “pivotal issue in this Motion for Summary Judgment, as far as the [Trial Court] is concerned, is causation and who had the burden of proving in a Motion for Summary Judgment that causation has been established or has not been established.”

During oral arguments, attorney Gobel stressed the central issue of the Motion, which was the failure of plaintiff to establish that the Firm's property owner client owed and/or breached a duty of care to protect her from the acts of third parties while she was present on the subject premises, and that plaintiff cannot establish a causal connection between any act or omission by defendant and her claimed loss.

After taking the matter under submission, on January 20, 2006, the Trial Court issued its final ruling denying the Motion.

On appeal, attorney Gobel argued that the Trial Court exceeded its “bounds of reason” in this instance by not grasping the requirements under the current version of California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, overlooking the issue of duty presented in the Motion for Summary Judgment and during oral arguments, and not considering all the evidence that was presented to negate the duty and causation elements.

On April 18, 2006, the Court of Appeal agreed with attorney Gobel, and found that the Firm's property owner client is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff cannot present any evidence which establishes that subject property owner owed and/or breached a duty of care, and cannot present any evidence which establishes a causal connection between any act or omission by the Firm's property owner client and plaintiff's claimed loss (i.e. causation).

Specifically, the Court of Appeal opined that, as a matter of law, the Firm's property owner client did not have a duty to hire security guards to protect against purse snatching and that the duty to lend assistance is limited, especially where there has been no physical injury. In addition, the Court of Appeal found no showing that any enhanced security measures, including the hiring of security guards, would have prevented the subject incident. Therefore, the Court of Appeal concluded that attorney Gobel sufficiently shifted the burden to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact regarding causation. Noting that plaintiff merely asserted the speculative possibility that security guards and the use of the Firm's property owner client's phone would have prevented her damages, the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, directed the Superior Court to set aside its order denying the Firm's Motion for Summary Judgment and to issue a new order granting the Motion!

http://

Related Practice Area(s):
Real Estate and Construction Law