Case Number: VC061581    Hearing Date: September 04, 2014    Dept: SEC

QUINTANA v. COOK
CASE NO.: VC061581
HEARING: 09/04014

#3
TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants FIESTA TAXI COOPERATIVE, INC. and ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COOPERATIVE, INC.’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
C.C.P. § 437c.

Plaintiffs’ decedent Abraham Casanova was injured in a multiple vehicle collision on the 605 freeway. At the time, decedent was driving a taxicab furnished by defendants. Plaintiff’s allege that decedent came to a complete stop behind a disabled vehicle (driven by defendant Mariella Chavez) and was struck from behind in a chain reaction. Defendants seek summary judgment as to the sole cause of action for wrongful death (negligence) brought by decedent’s wife and daughter, plaintiffs Maricruz Quintana and Elizabeth Quintana.

The action was filed in July 2012. In April 2013, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. After defendants successfully demurrer, plaintiffs filed their operative Second Amended Complaint in October 2013. Therein, plaintiffs allege that defendants provided decedent with an unsafe taxicab without side-impact air bags and inoperable front air bags and seatbelts. Plaintiffs also allege common carrier. SAC, ¶¶56-60.

In support of their motion, defendants submitted plaintiffs’ July 2013 discovery responses. Kim decl., Exh. G through L. Plaintiffs did not produce any specific information regarding the taxicab’s allege defects. Plaintiffs objected on work product/privilege to the extent it had consulted and engaged in preliminary discussions with experts. Defendants argue that the responses are inadequate and thus shift the burden to plaintiffs to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact. See Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573; Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96.

Plaintiffs argue that the motion was filed prior to the discovery cut-off date and that defendants are at fault, at least in part, for plaintiffs’ lack of evidence.
With respect to their purportedly insufficient discovery responses, plaintiffs note that they were unable to perform an inspection of the taxicab because it was destroyed sometime in November 2012. The destruction occurred prior to any request by plaintiffs to preserve the vehicle, and thus there is no issue of spoliation.

Plaintiffs also sought documents pertaining to maintenance of the subject vehicle from defendants. Supple decl., Exh. C (nos. 46-50). None were produced by defendant Fiesta, although defendants’ PMK testified at deposition that the records are digitally stored in the computer system. Exh. D (PMK depo, p. 51). Plaintiffs represent that they are currently investigating and gathering research with their experts.

Because discovery is ongoing and defendants did not make a showing that plaintiffs cannot obtain evidence necessary to support their claim, their reliance on Union Bank to shift the burden is somewhat misplaced. See Krantz v. BT Visual Images (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 164, 174; Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1433, 1439. Even if the burden of production shifted, the Court finds plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to defeat the motion.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs cannot satisfy the elements of a wrongful death claim because they lack evidence that defendants’ alleged acts or omissions were a substantial factor in decedent’s death. See Lopez v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 675; Mayes v. Bryan (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1075. Expert testimony may be used to establish causation in instances where the determination is beyond common experience. Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1363.

In opposition, plaintiffs proffer photographs from the accident which show that no air bags were deployed. Supple decl., Exh. B. That is consistent with Officer Christensen’s testimony. Exh. I. The coroner’s report also states that decedent suffered fatal injuries as a result of direct impact with the steering wheel. Exh. A. Defendants argue that such evidence is speculative. It is probative on the issue of whether the vehicle was equipped with safety features and sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants breached their duty of care by failing to use vehicles with adequate safety devices.

With respect to the allegation that they were acting as common carriers pursuant to Civil Code section 2168 et seq, defendants argue that any statutory duty is irrelevant under the facts. Plaintiffs contend that defendants breached their statutory duty to provide a safe work environment. Ingham v. Luxor Cab Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1045; see also AmeriGas Propane, LP v. Landstar Ranger, Inc. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 981. Specifically, they argue that the vehicle’s lacking common safety features such as air bags and seatbelts is a breach of the standard of care. See C.C. §§ 2100, 2103.

The Court finds the existence of triable issues of fact as to plaintiffs’ wrongful death cause of action alleged against the moving defendants. The motion for summary judgment is denied.