Case Number: 12K17722    Hearing Date: September 04, 2014    Dept: 77

Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. CCP § 437c.

Defendant has produced sufficient facts to demonstrate that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, MF Nos. 1-10, and the declarations of Suzanne R. Feffer, and evidence attached thereto, show that Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgment.

As with all negligence causes of action, a plaintiff pleading premises liability must prove s/he was injured, that defendant owed her a duty of care, that defendant breached that duty, and that defendant’s breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant’s motion raises as an additional ground that plaintiff’s claims fail because defendant had inspected the aisle where plaintiff fell before the incident and it did not have actual and/or constructive notice of a dangerous condition.

All persons owe a duty of due care. Civil Code § 1714. Moreover, a landowner or possessor of land, such as Defendant here, owes a duty to maintain his or her premises in a “reasonably safe condition.” Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1189. The general rule for liability for owners or possessors of land is based on foreseeability of injury. 6 Witkin, Cal. Law, Torts §§ 891-95, pp. 261-67 (9th ed. 1988); Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108. “The proper test to be applied to the liability of the possessor of land in accordance with section 1714 of the Civil Code is whether in the management of his property he has acted as a reasonable man in view of the probability of injury to others . . . .” Rowland, supra 69 Cal.2d at p. 119; accord, Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1156. Indeed, landowners are deemed to have an affirmative duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, including liability for obvious or known dangers, for failure to warn and to perform reasonable inspections that might disclose the existence of dangerous conditions. 6 Witkin, Torts supra at §§ 924-31, pp. 294-302. “A store owner exercises ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers, and the care required is commensurate with the risks involved.” Ortega v. Kmart Corporation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.

Here, defendant has discharged its initial movant’s burden and the burden to respond has shifted to plaintiff. “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851.

In this case, defendant has produced sufficient evidence that shows that plaintiff cannot produce evidence to establish that defendant failed to meet its duty of care, that defendant breached its duty of care and/or to establish negligence on the part of the defendant because defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. See MF Nos. 1-10. Defendant has made a prima facie showing that it did not breach its duty of care to plaintiff. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on plaintiff to show with admissible evidence that there is a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of material fact. Therefore, this motion is granted. There is no triable issue of material fact in this case that warrants the weighing procedure of trial.

Moving party to give notice.