Ti v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Trans. Dist. CA1/3

Filed 3/5/14 Ti v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Trans. Dist. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

YANG TI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A136954 v. (Alameda County SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID Super. Ct. No. HG11575852) TRANSIT DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.

Yang Ti and her husband, Pat Diao, sued the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) for injuries Ti allegedly sustained when the doors of a BART train closed on her as she attempted to board.1 Her complaint for premises liability alleged that BART was liable under theories of general negligence and maintaining a dangerous condition on public property. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that Ti failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find either that the train operator was negligent or that the condition of the train doors constituted a dangerous condition of public property that presented a substantial risk of injury to BART passengers. We agree, and affirm the judgment.

1 For simplicity, we will refer to plaintiffs jointly as Ti. 1

BACKGROUND Ti alleged that the doors of a BART car closed on her as she attempted to board on the morning of April 1, 2010, and that she suffered unidentified injuries as she twisted to escape its clutches. According to the complaint, her husband suffered loss of consortium. BART moved for summary judgment on the grounds that no triable issues of fact existed as to Ti’s claims of liability based on general negligence and maintaining a dangerous condition on public property. In support, BART engineer David Strohl attested that the closing pressure for BART train car doors of 15 to a maximum of 30 pounds is consistent with other transit agencies around the country and complies with national standards. According to Strohl, a door-closing pressure lower than 15 pounds would allow dirt buildup on the threshold, leaning riders or other sources of minor friction to prevent the doors from closing, thereby causing innumerable system-wide delays.2 When doors encounter a more significant obstruction, the closing pressure is not increased. Rather, if a door cannot fully close, the pressure ceases after three seconds, allowing the door to be opened by hand. Pressure on the doors is then re-applied after one-half second to three seconds, depending on the model of the car. Strohl also attested that he reviewed BART’s maintenance and repair records for all cars potentially involved in Ti’s incident and that, based on his review, all were regularly maintained and operating pursuant to specifications on that day. BART’s other evidence showed that the rate of passengers reporting an incident involving the closing of a train door from April 1, 2008 through April 1, 2010 was one in 2,339,400. Since each passenger passes through a car door to enter and exit the train, BART’s actual train door incident rate is one in 4,678,800. Ti admitted all of the above, but argued BART could be held liable for its train operator’s allegedly negligent failure to control the car doors. Her supporting declaration                                                              2 As even occasional BART riders have unhappily learned, trains cannot move until all doors are completely closed. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (g), (h).) 2