Case Number: GC049443    Hearing Date: July 18, 2014    Dept: NCB

22. GC049443
STELLA MADRID v COPAY BUILDING PRODUCTS CO et al
Motion for Summary Judgment

The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered personal injuries while she was using a garage door on the premises of Defendant, Tin Yung, because the garage door was defectively manufactured and designed by Defendant, Clopay Building Products Company. Plaintiff alleges two causes of action: 1) Products Liability – Strict Liability, Negligence, and Breach of Warranty and 2) Premises Liability

This hearing concerns the motion of Defendant, Amarr Company, for summary judgment of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 16, 2013 that identified DOE Defendant 10 as Amarr Company
Under CCP section 437c, the Defendant’s burden of proof to obtain summary judgment is to demonstrate that each cause of action cannot be established. The Plaintiff’s form complaint pleads only the first cause of action for products liability against the Defendant. The cause of action has three counts: 1) strict liability, 2) negligence, and 3) breach of warranty. Section 437c imposes the burden on the Defendant to demonstrate that an essential element in each of these three causes of action cannot be established or that an affirmative defense bars each cause of action.

1. First Cause of Action for Strict Liability and Second Cause of Action for Negligence
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot establish that the product was defective in her product liability cause of action. Under California law, whether the claim is in negligence or strict liability, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that there was a defect in the defendant’s product. Moreno v. Sayre (1984) 162 Cal. App. 3d 116, 124. Such proof is the essence of products liability theory. Id.

The Defendant provides the following evidence in its Separate Statement of Facts (“SSF”):

1) the garage door was an Amarr Model 2400 garage door (SSF 6);
2) when the Plaintiff was closing the garage door on June 14, 2010, she pushed the door down and then placed her hand against the garage door to slow the descent of the door (SSF 19);
3) while the garage door was closing, the Plaintiff suffered injuries when her middle finger got caught in between two of the garage door panels (SSF 20);
4) the garage door comes with two lift handles and instructions to use the lift handles when opening and closing the door (SSF 31);
5) when someone opens or closes the door, there is no reason to place their hands on the door because the lift handles are used (SSF 31); and
6) no design or manufacturing defect exists in the garage door (SSF 29).

These facts are sufficient to meet Defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the garage door at issue does not have any defect. Since an essential element of the Plaintiff’s claim for products liability is that a defect existed in the Defendant’s product, the Defendant’s evidence demonstrates that the Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of her claim. This is sufficient to meet its burden of proof under CCP section 437c.
The Defendant’s evidence shifts the burden of producing evidence to the Plaintiff. Under CCP section 437c, the Plaintiff has the burden of producing evidence that creates a dispute of fact.
The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers or facts. Since the Plaintiff did not produce any facts that create a dispute of fact, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff cannot establish her claims for product liability based on strict liability and negligence.

Therefore, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff’s claims of product liability based on strict liability and negligence have no merit.

2. Third Cause of Action for Breach of Warranty
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant breached an express and implied warranty. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot establish that there was any privity of contract between itself and the Plaintiff that is required for it to be liable for the breach of a warranty.
The general rule is that privity of contract is required in an action for breach of either express or implied warranty and that there is no privity between the original seller and a subsequent purchaser who is in no way a party to the original sale. Burr v. Sherwin Williams Co. (1954) 42 Cal. 2d 682, 695.

The Defendant provides the following evidence in its Separate Statement of Facts (“SSF”):

1) the garage door was an Amarr Model 2400 garage door (SSF 6);
2) the Amarr Model 2400 garage door is sold by Amarr only to licensed contractors as a kit that the contractor assembles when the contractor installs the door (SSF 9); and
3) the Plaintiff never entered into a contract with the Defendant and the garage door was already installed in the garage at 63 Eloise St., Pasadena prior to the Plaintiff moving there in 2007 (SSF 49).

These facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with the Defendant because the garage door was sold only to licensed contractors and because the garage door was already installed when the Plaintiff moved to the house. Since an essential element of the Plaintiff’s claim for breach of warranty is that privity of contract exists between herself and the Defendant, the Defendant’s evidence demonstrates that the Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of her claim. This is sufficient to meet its burden of proof under CCP section 437c.
The Defendant’s evidence shifts the burden of producing evidence to the Plaintiff. Under CCP section 437c, the Plaintiff has the burden of producing evidence that creates a dispute of fact.
The Plaintiff did not file any opposition papers or facts. Since the Plaintiff did not produce any facts that create a dispute of fact, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff cannot establish her claims for product liability based on strict liability and negligence.

Therefore, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff’s claims of product liability based on breach of express and implied warranties has no merit.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the Plaintiff cannot establish her product liability cause of action against the Defendant on her three theories of strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. The Defendant’s evidence indicates that the garage door at issue has no defect and that there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
The Court grants summary Judgment. Defendant to prepare the order and Judgment.