Case Name:   Veeru Gorla, et al. v. City of Sunnyvale, et al.

Case No.:       1-14-CV-262389

Currently before the Court is the demurrer of defendant the King’s Academy (“TKA”) to the first amended complaint (“FAC”) of plaintiffs Veeru Gorla, Satya Gorla individually and as personal representative and guardian ad litem of the heirs and the estate of Lalitha D. Maganti, and Bhuvanesh Gorla (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). TKA demurs to the fifth cause of action for negligence on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

TKA argues that it had no duty to warn Plaintiffs of the dangerous condition on Duane Avenue because the street was not under its control and it did not create the dangerous condition. Plaintiffs contend that TKA owed them a duty of care to warn them of the dangerous condition at Duane Avenue because it explicitly instructed them to enter its premises via the driveway located at 790 E. Duane Avenue.

Here, Plaintiffs allege “Defendants, and each of them, were aware for many years of the dangerous condition for cars crossing Duane Avenue, and the dangerous condition created by the lack of a designated left turn lane, nor any warning signs or other safety devices on the street.” (FAC, Attachment GN-1.)  Plaintiffs, however, do not allege any facts indicating that TKA’s activities affirmatively created a hazardous physical condition on Duane Avenue. (See A. Teichert & Son v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 657, 662-663 [landowner under no duty for dangerous condition off premises unless his or her activities create “hazardous physical condition”]; Seaber v. Hotel Del Coronado (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 481, 487-488 [landowner under no duty to warn travelers of dangerous condition on public street not created by him or her]; Swann v. Olivier (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1330 [landowners liable for injuries not technically on their “premises” only if they impose or create “some palpable external effect on the area where the plaintiff was injured.”], overruled on other grounds in Alcarez v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1158.) Simply instructing invitees to use a driveway is insufficient for a court to find that a landowner has a duty to make safe or warn of traffic conditions on an abutting public roadway. (See A. Teichert, supra, at pp. 662-663.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs rely on Barnes v. Black (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1478 for the proposition that a landowner owes a duty of care “to avoid exposing persons to risks of injury that occur off site if the landowner’s property is maintained in such a manner as to expose persons to an unreasonable risk offsite.” However, Barnes is distinguishable from the present action. In Barnes, supra, a child was riding his tricycle on a private sidewalk in the apartment complex in which he lived, when his tricycle veered off the sidewalk, down the slope of the driveway and into the street, where he was struck by a vehicle. (Id. at p. 1475.) The trial court granted the owner of the apartment’s complex’s motion for summary adjudication as to several causes of action, including negligence, on the ground that the owner owed the child no duty of care. The Court of Appeal reversed. With regard to the owner’s argument that it owed no duty to persons injured in adjacent public streets, the Court found that a dangerous condition existed on the owner’s property, namely, a private sidewalk, situated at the top of a steep driveway, which caused the child’s injuries. (Id. at pp. 1479-1480.)  In contrast to Barnes, supra, the alleged dangerous condition in this action, the lack of a designated left turn lane and warning signs or other safety devices, existed on Duane Avenue, not on TKA’s premises. Therefore, Barnes, supra, does not apply.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to support their claim that TKA owed them a duty to warn of the dangerous condition that existed on Duane Avenue. Thus, they fail to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for negligence against TKA. Accordingly, the demurrer to the fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.