Case Number: BC561506 Hearing Date: January 17, 2018 Dept: O

Durst v. Glen Helen Racing, Inc., et al. (BC561506)

Defendant John Burr Cycles, Inc.’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant John Burr Cycles, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Defendant John Burr Cycles, Inc. (“John Burr”) moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on the grounds that Defendant owes no duty to Plaintiff.

MERITS:

A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP 437c(p)(2).)

“In negligence a defendant may be liable for injuries caused by his failure to use reasonable care in situations in which he owes a duty to the injured person. In considering the existence of “duty” in a given case several factors require consideration including the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved. (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113.)

Ordinarily, in the absence of a special relationship between the parties, there is no duty to control the conduct of a third person so as to prevent him from causing harm to another. (Richards v. Stanley (1954) 43 Cal. 2d 60, 65.)

984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 184-86.)

John Burr contends it owes no duty to Plaintiff because it did not own, lease, possess or control the premises. Defendant produces the following evidence: John Burr was merely a sponsor of the Subject Race. (Defense Separate Statement (DSS) 3-4.) The Sponsorship Agreement did not entitle John Burr to any profits or remuneration from the races, nor did the Sponsorship Agreement impose on John Burr control or responsibility of any aspect of the races and/or the premises. (DSS 5-9.) John Burr never owned, leased, operated, maintained and/or controlled the premises or the Subject Race. (DSS 17-18.) John Burr did not design the tract nor did it have control of or mark the track at any time. (DSS 19.) John Burr has never been responsible for security, safety, or warnings at the Raceway. (DSS 21-26.) John Burr never owned, leased, operated, controlled, drove, sold or maintained the subject UTV. (DSS 29.)

The undisputed evidence establishes that John Burr owed no duty to Plaintiff based on premises or general negligence principles. John Burr merely entered into a sponsorship agreement for advertisement purposes. The foreseeability of harm to Plaintiff is low based on John Burr’s mere sponsorship. Further, there exists no certainty of injury and closeness of connection between John Burr’s conduct and the injury. The sponsorship agreement did not impose any responsibility on John Burr, including the responsibility of security and/or proper signage to keep attendees safe from danger. There is nothing morally blameworthy or reprehensible about anything John Burr did. Imposing a duty under these facts would create an onerous burden on John Burr.

Plaintiff failed to file any evidence in opposition. Accordingly, motion is GRANTED.