Case Number: BC541237 Hearing Date: August 04, 2015 Dept: 92
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

MONIQUE RIDEAUX,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

RUST RAWNSLEY, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No: BC541237

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #22
August 4, 2015

1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, Monique Rideaux filed this action against Defendant, Rust Rawnsley for damages arising out of a slip and fall. Plaintiff alleges she fell on wet stairs in her apartment building on 4/11/12.

2. Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant moves for summary judgment on the complaint, contending (a) the staircase was not dangerous as a matter of law at the time of the slip and fall, and (b) Defendant did not have any notice that the staircase was dangerous.

a. Staircase Not Dangerous
Defendant’s first contention is that the staircase was not dangerous as a matter of law. Defendant presents the expert declaration of Peter Zande in support of this position. Zande is a certified safety professional as recognized by the Board of Certified Safety Professionals, Inc. He specializes in, among other things, slip and fall analysis. He declares that he tested the subject staircase for slip resistance on 7/10/12, approximately three months after the fall. Notably, the owner of the premises, Defendant Rust Rawnsley, declares that he did not make any changes to the staircase between the date of the fall and January of 2014, at which time the entire property was re-painted. Zande declares that the staircase, when wet, had a slip resistance of between .35 and .36. He declares anything with a slip resistance of .35 or greater is classified as slip resistant. His opinion is that the staircase was safe at the time of the fall, and there was adequate traction on the staircase.

The Declaration of Zande is sufficient to meet the moving burden to show that the staircase was not dangerous as a matter of law at the time of Plaintiff’s slip. The Court also notes that Defendant presented evidence of a lack of prior similar accidents, despite his ownership of the building for approximately 35 years, as well as evidence that Plaintiff herself had been living in the unit for approximately three years prior to her fall without incident. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact in this regard.

Plaintiff attempts to do so via the Declaration of J. George Sotter. Sotter also shows that he qualifies as an expert concerning slip resistance, as he is a member of the American Society for Testing and Materials and analyzes many accidents for purposes of determining slip resistance. He declares that he tested the subject area on 6/18/15, and found the slip resistance under wet conditions to be 34. He declares anything under 40 is unsafe. He also notes that he found sand and other debris, which would combine to make the staircase additionally unsafe.

Notably, Zande uses decimals in his slip resistance numbers, whereas Sotter does not. It is not clear if Zande’s .35 is equivalent to Sotter’s 35. Zande used a Technical Products Model 80 floor friction tester per the Voices of Safety International standard V41.21-98, whereas Sotter used a British Pendulum Tester. It therefore appears the numbers may not be equivalent.

Defendant, in reply, argues that Sotter tested the area AFTER it was re-painted in January of 2014, and therefore his test results are not relevant to determining whether the area was slip resistant at the time of the fall. Defendant submitted evidentiary objections to this effect. The objections are sustained. Sotter did not test the staircase in the same condition it was in when Plaintiff fell, and therefore the results of the test are not relevant.

The motion for summary judgment is granted on the ground that Defendant met his burden to show the staircase was not dangerous at the time Plaintiff fell, and Plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of material fact in this regard. The Court declines to consider the additional issue of whether Defendant had notice of the dangerous condition, as doing so is not necessary to resolution of the merits of the motion.

Dated this 4th day of August, 2015

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court