2009-00056111-CU-OR
Karen Ledezma vs. Jeffrey L. Bujack
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion for Summary Judgment
McElroy, Conor H.

Defendant Bujack’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

The Court rules on Defendant’s evidentiary objections as follows: objection para. 7,
2:15-19, para. 8, Exh. A are SUSTAINED, the remainder are OVERRULED. Defendant
must submit a separate, formal Order on evidentiary objections in compliance with
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1354(c) for the Court’s signature at the time the
proposed order on the motion is submitted.

Plaintiff’s complaint in this landlord/tenant personal injuries/premises liability action,
alleges that on August 11, 2009 Plaintiff Karen Ledezma stepped into a sprinkler head
hole in the side lawn of the residential property rented from defendant, located at 2632
36th Street, Sacramento, CA, 95817, causing injury to her foot and lower leg.
Plaintiff alleges that she stepped into a depression in the side yard, which was eight
inches wide and four inches deep, which resulted in her breaking a bone in her foot. (UMF 10) Although plaintiff had lived there for over six months, she had never seen
the hole before. (UMF 11)

Defendant presents admissible evidence that at no time prior to the plaintiff’s injury
was he aware of the existence of the hole or depression in the yard. Prior to plaintiff
taking possession of the property, defendant had inspected the property in
preparation for a prospective tenant and never noticed that hole or depression. (UMF
13-16)

After plaintiff had taken possession of the property, but prior to her injury, defendant
was never notified by anyone of any hole or depression in the yard. During the time
that plaintiff was a tenant, defendant regularly walked the front and side yards watering
the lawn. At that time he inspected the property, but never noticed any dangerous or
problematic conditions. (UMF 17-20.)

Following notice of the incident in August 2009, defendant went to the property to
speak to plaintiff and correct the condition. At that time he was unable to locate any
hole or depression in the side yard. (UMF 20-22.)

A landlord must conduct reasonable periodic inspections of rental property whenever
the landlord has the legal right of possession. Before giving possession of leased
property to a tenant, a landlord must conduct a reasonable inspection of the property
for unsafe conditions and must take reasonable precautions to prevent injury due to
the conditions that were or reasonably should have been discovered in the process.
The inspection must include common areas under the landlord’s control.

After a tenant has taken possession, a landlord must take reasonable precautions to
prevent injury due to any unsafe condition in an area of the premises under the
landlord’s control if the landlord knows or reasonably should have known about it.

CACI 1006

For premises liability, Plaintiff must show that defendant was negligent in the use or
maintenance of the property if: (1) A condition on the property created an
unreasonable risk of harm; (2) defendant knew or, through the exercise of reasonable
care, should have known about it; and (3) defendant failed to repair the condition,
protect against harm from the condition, or give adequate warning of the condition.

CACI 1003

To establish a landlord’s negligence and impose liability for injuries suffered due to the
defective condition of the premises, the owner must have either actual or constructive
knowledge of the dangerous condition or have been able by the exercise of ordinary
care to discover the condition, which if known to him, he should realize as involving an
unreasonable risk to those on his premises. His negligence in such cases is founded
upon his failure to exercise ordinary care in remedying the defect after he has
discovered it.” Louie v. Hagstrom’s Food Stores, Inc. (1947) 81 Cal. App. 2d 601, 606-
607.

“[T]he basic policy of this state set forth by the Legislature in section 1714 of the Civil
Code is that everyone is responsible for an injury caused to another by his want of
ordinary care or skill in the management of his property.” (Rowland v. Christian (1968)
69 Cal.2d 108, 118-119.) Thus, “[g]enerally, a landowner has a duty to maintain the
land in a reasonably safe condition.” (Sturgeon v. Curnutt (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 301, 306.)
Moving party has met his initial burden of proof on summary judgment.

In opposition, plaintiff submits only her own declaration. Although she fails to identify a
genuine dispute as to any of moving party’s material facts, she presents some
additional evidence that defendant had his maintenance man install a new sprinkler
system in the yard in the month before plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff declares that the
hole in which she injured her foot was where the old sprinkler head would have been
located. She asserts the maintenance man, as defendant’s agent, should have
reported the unsafe condition to the defendant.

The court must view the evidence, and all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in
the light most favorable to the opposing party. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
25 Cal. 4th 826, 843; Code of Civil Procedure section 437c (c). All doubts as to
whether any material, triable issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party
opposing summary judgment. A judge may not grant summary judgment when any
material factual issue is disputed. To be successful on a motion for summary
judgment, the evidence must leave no room for conflicting inferences as to material
facts. (Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 714, 735.) Here, conflicting
inferences exist as to material facts.

The Court therefore must deny the motion for summary judgment as a disputed issue
of material fact remains as to whether defendant had constructive notice that the
maintenance man installing new sprinklers left the real property in an unsafe condition.

The prevailing party is directed to prepare a formal order complying with C.C.P. §437c
(g) and C.R.C. Rule 3.1312.