2012-00128915-CU-NP

Janet Williams vs. UC Davis Medical Center

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion for Summary Judgment

Filed By:  Vroom, Cynthia A.

Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s unopposed motion for
summary judgment is granted.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for “intentional tort” and “conversion” based on
allegations that when she was admitted to the U.C. Davis Medical Center (“UCDMC”),
operated by Defendant she was wearing jewelry which was removed during treatment
and not returned to her.

Defendant’s separate statement includes the following.  UCDMC is a licensed hospital.
Plaintiff was discharged from UCDMC on November 23, 2011.  Plaintiff filed the instant
action on July 27, 2012.  At all relevant times, UCDMC has fireproof safes to store
patients’ valuables and provides notice to patients that it will not be liable for jewelry
and other items unless placed in the safes.  Plaintiff did not place her jewelry in a safe.

Defendant seeks summary judgment on the basis that it is immune for tort liability
under the California Tort Claims Act, that any conversion claim is barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, and is otherwise barred by Civil Code §§ 1859 and
1860 (the “Innkeeper” Statutes).

Here, Defendant is specifically defined as a public entity.  (Gov’t Code § 811.2.)  As
such, it is not liable for the common law conversion claims set forth in this action.
Government Code § 815(a) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute…
A public entity is not liable for injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or
omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.”  In addition,
Defendant’s evidence shows that Plaintiff did not file the lawsuit until more than eight
months after she was discharged from UCDMC.  However, “[a]ll civil actions for the
recovery or conversion of personal property…alleged to have been left at a…
hospital…shall be begun within 90 days from and after the date of departure of the
owner of said personal property from said…hospital…”  (CCP § 341a.)  Thus the
action is also untimely.  Further, given that Defendant maintained a fireproof safe,
gave notice to Plaintiff that it would not be liable for jewelry unless placed therein, and
Plaintiff did not place her jewelry therein, Defendant is exempted from liability.  (Civ.
Code § 1860; see also Gardner v. Jonathan Club (1950) 35 Cal.2d 343, 348 [“Section
1860, relating to small articles of unusual value that are easily lost or misplaced,
affords the innkeeper [or operator of a licensed hospital] additional protection against
liability for loss.  If he keeps a safe and posts the prescribed notices, he is
exempted from all liability for such articles unless they are placed in his safe]
[emphasis added].)

Defendant’s evidence is sufficient to shift to Plaintiff the burden of establishing a triable
issue of material fact.  Having failed to oppose the motion, Plaintiff has not met her
burden.  The motion for summary judgment is granted.

Defendant’s counsel shall prepare for this Court’s signature and a judgment of
dismissal pursuant to CCP § 437c and CRC Rule 3.1312.