- (Release from Liability) A checklist indicating a sauna “needed repair” was insufficient to show gross negligence by a fitness center. Mansi Joshi v. Fitness International, LLC (No. H048115 Santa Clarita County Super. Ct. No. CV337351 California Court of Appeal Sixth Appellate District Filed July 1, 2022)
- (Ostensible Agency) In a medical malpractice suit, hospital was not liable for the alleged negligence of a physician because patient reasonably should have known that physician was not the hospital’s agent. Elisa Magallanes De Valle v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (No. F082099 Super. Ct. No. 2026884 California Court of Appeal Fifth Appellate District Filed July 5, 2022)
- (Jurisdiction) Defendant’s systematic business activities in California were sufficient to support a finding of specific jurisdiction even though the cause of action did not arise out of defendant’s in-state conduct. Daimler Trucks North America LLC v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (No. B316199 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV07830 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Five Filed July 7, 2022)
- (Health Care) Hospital was not required to further notify a prospective emergency medical services fee when it provided signage in the emergency room that its fees are available online. Dar Saini v. Sutter Health (No. A162081 Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG19008395 California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District Division One Filed July 8, 2022)
- (Dangerous Condition) A city’s policy of repairing half-inch sidewalk defects did not mean that a three- quarters-inch defect posed a substantial risk of injury. Monica Nunez v. City of Redondo Beach (No. B308741 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC695847 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Three Filed July 27, 2022)
The above referenced court opinions have come to our attention during last month. Please find below a brief summary of these opinions for your consideration.
- (Release from Liability) A checklist indicating a sauna “needed repair” was insufficient to show gross negligence by a fitness center. Mansi Joshi v. Fitness International, LLC (No. H048115 Santa Clarita County Super. Ct. No. CV337351 California Court of Appeal Sixth Appellate District Filed July 1, 2022)
Plaintiff was injured while using a locker room sauna at defendant’s fitness club of which he was a member. The plaintiff filed a personal injury suit alleging a claim for premises liability based upon the defendant’s failure to maintain the sauna in a safe condition. In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent and it had failed to guard against or warn against a dangerous condition. Plaintiff alleged that an interior light was burned out, and that when she entered the sauna and closed the door, she tripped and fell because the area was dark, resulting in her right arm being severely burned after making contact with the sauna heating element.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that any claim for ordinary negligence was barred by a release of liability signed by the plaintiff in connection with her membership. Defendant claimed further that the plaintiff did not establish a claim for gross negligence, as well, she could not establish a claim for premises liability because defendant had no actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition. The trial court granted the motion, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.
Plaintiff argued on appeal that there was triable issue of material fact to support a claim for gross negligence against the defendant. Plaintiff contended that there was evidence presented that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the existence of a dangerous condition-the burned out light bulb inside the sauna-at the time of the incident and it failed to take corrective action to eliminate the danger.
The appeals court affirmed the judgment. It concluded that in its motion for summary judgment, the defendant negated a claim for ordinary negligence alleged in a complaint because the plaintiff signed a membership agreement containing a release of claims for injuries arising from accidents at defendant’s facility; and a claim for gross negligence; and a claim for premises liability based upon evidence that had no actual or constructive knowledge at the time of incident that the sauna light bulb was burned out. The court further concluded that plaintiff did not present evidence that raised triable issues of material fact in support of her claims.
- (Ostensible Agency) In a medical malpractice suit, hospital was not liable for the alleged negligence of a physician because patient reasonably should have known that physician was not the hospital’s agent. Elisa Magallanes De Valle v. Doctors Medical Center of Modesto (No. F082099 Super. Ct. No. 2026884 California Court of Appeal Fifth Appellate District Filed July 5, 2022)
Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against her treating physician, as well as defendant hospital, after suffering complications and injuries because from a hysterectomy procedure preformed by her physician at defendant hospital. The complaint alleged a single cause of action for medical negligence against all defendants. Potential liability on the part of the hospital was premised primarily on an ostensible agency theory. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital and an appeal followed.
The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court found that the plaintiff reasonably should have known that the physician was not the agent of the hospital. The court reasoned that the plaintiff did not rely on the apparent agency relationship between the hospital and the physician in seeking and receiving surgical care from the defendant physician. Rather, plaintiff chose the defendant as her treating physician and elected to undergo the hysterectomy procedure under the guidance of the physician and on the condition that it would be performed by the physician. The defendant physician merely utilized the hospital’s surgical facilities to provide surgical care to the physician’s own patients. Accordingly, the hospital could not be held liable for the alleged negligence of the defendant physician.
- (Jurisdiction) Defendant’s systematic business activities in California were sufficient to support a finding of specific jurisdiction even though the cause of action did not arise out of defendant’s in-state conduct. Daimler Trucks North America LLC v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (No. B316199 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV07830 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Five Filed July 7, 2022)
Defendant automobile manufacturer was subject of a lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought to recover injuries stemming from a truck accident that occurred in Oklahoma. The defendant filed a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. In the petition for writ of mandate, the defendant argued the motion to quash should have been granted because the operative facts did not establish the defendant was subject to jurisdiction in California. The appeals court denied the petition. The underlying facts were that the plaintiffs were both California residents, and plaintiff was seeking the recovery of medical expenses and loss of consortium incurred and suffered in California. Furthermore, plaintiffs used the allegedly defective vehicle in California. Finally, defendant had advertised, sold, and serviced the vehicles in California. All these facts taken together led the court to conclude that plaintiffs’ claims related to defendant’s California activities, and thus, there were minimum contacts sufficient to exercise specific personal jurisdiction.
- (Health Care) Hospital was not required to further notify a prospective emergency medical services fee when it provided signage in the emergency room that its fees are available online. Dar Saini v. Sutter Health (No. A162081 Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG19008395 California Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District Division One Filed July 8, 2022)
Plaintiff appealed from a judgement entered after a trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer by defendant hospital to plaintiff’s third amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) based on the defendant’s failure to disclose, prior to providing emergency medical treatment, that its bill for emergency services would include an evaluation and management service fee (EMS Fee), by visibly posting “signage in or around defendant’s emergency room or at its registration windows/desks.” Plaintiff acknowledged that an appellate division of the California Court System recently held that identical allegations did not state a cause of action under CLRA and Gray v. Dignity Health (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 225. Plaintiff’s argument that Gray was wrongly decided are not persuasive. Further, plaintiff established that the trial court abused its discretion in denying further leave to amend. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the judgment.
The appeals court found that while the defendant had a duty to disclose medical care fees generally it did not have an additional duty to disclose the EMS Fee in the manner suggested by the plaintiff. The defendant fulfilled its duty to disclose by listing the EMS Fee in its chargemaster, published on the defendant’s website. Requiring more would be go beyond the defendant’s statutory and regulatory obligations with respect to providing emergency medical care. Statutes and regulations ensure that emergency medical care is provided immediately to those who need it, and billing disclosure requirements are secondary to that primary objective.
- (Dangerous Condition) A city’s policy of repairing half-inch sidewalk defects did not mean that a three- quarters-inch defect posed a substantial risk of injury. Monica Nunez v. City of Redondo Beach (No. B308741 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC695847 California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Division Three Filed July 27, 2022)
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered against her after the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on her personal injury lawsuit. The plaintiff suffered injuries after she tripped on an elevated sidewalk slab within the city. The trial dismissed her lawsuit after concluding the defect in the sidewalk was trivial as a matter of law, with no aggravating factors, and thus nonactionable under Government Code section 830 et seq. The appeals court agreed with the trial court and affirmed the judgment.
The appeals court noted that under the Government Claims Act, a public entity may be held liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on public property. A condition is “dangerous” if it “creates a substantial risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.” Conversely, under the trivial defect doctrine, “a property owner is not liable for damages caused by a minor, trivial, or insignificant defect” on its property. In the sidewalk- walkway context, “a court should decide whether a defect may be dangerous only after considering all of the circumstances surrounding the accident that might make the defect more dangerous than its size alone would suggest.” Here, the court rejected the plaintiff’s contentions, noting that there was a difference between some risk of injury and a substantial risk of injury. The defendant’s policy may suggest that a half-inch offset posed a tripping hazard, but it does not necessarily mean that the defect in this case posed a substantial risk of injury. The court noted that there were no aggravating factors that existed that could make the risk of injury substantial, therefore the trial court did not err in finding that the sidewalk offset was trivial as a matter of law.
Should you have any questions concerning these court decisions or desire a copy of any of them, please do not hesitate to contact our office.