Chavez v. Solomon CA2/8

Filed 9/6/13 Chavez v. Solomon CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

JUAN P. CHAVEZ et al., B240549

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TC023412) v.

DAVID SOLOMON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rose A. Hom, Judge. Affirmed.

Arthur D. Hodge for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi and Gabriel J. Pimentel for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

*********

Defendant and appellant David Solomon challenges a jury award against him and in favor of plaintiffs and respondents, a mother and her son, who lived next door to defendant’s partially constructed house. (Defendant did not occupy the property.) Plaintiffs alleged defendant’s negligence in failing to prevent a fire hazard on his property caused them damages when a fire that started on his property spread to their property. The jury awarded a total of $12,883 to the son and $3,400 to the mother. Defendant’s primary contention on appeal is that the court erred in submitting the negligence cause of action to the jury because defendant owed no duty to prevent the harm to plaintiffs as a matter of law. Defendant contends he owed no duty of care to prevent plaintiffs’ damages since plaintiffs did not sustain the alleged damages on property that defendant owned or controlled, but on their own property. Defendant further argues the law does not impose a duty to warn or protect neighbors from a fire of unknown cause that broke out when he was absent from the property and about which he had no notice. In particular, defendant contends the law does not impose liability for the criminal acts of third parties who may have started the fire while they trespassed on his property. Contending that plaintiffs knew as well as he did that transients sometimes loitered in his partially constructed dwelling, defendant asserts he had no duty to warn of the risk that a trespasser might start a fire; therefore, the trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct the jury with CACI No. 1004 in the premises liability series of civil jury instructions concerning the absence of a duty to warn of an open and obvious condition. Last, defendant asserts error in the admission of evidence to support plaintiffs’ damages claims and also contends no substantial evidence supports the damages award. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. DISCUSSION Defendant misperceives the scope of a landowner’s duty to prevent harm to others. California law does not hold a landowner free of liability for any and all harm occurring off the landowner’s property. The Supreme Court opinion in Rowland v . Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (Rowland) established that the contemporary premises liability test