California Court of Appeal Mar 24, 2014 No. D062568Unpublished
Filed 3/24/14 Klemke v. ISEC, Inc. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RICHARD KLEMKE et al., D062568
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2010-00091692-CU- PO-CTL) ISEC, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy T.
Taylor, Judge. Reversed.
Rupp Johnston & Lloyd and Andrew F. Lloyd for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Gordon & Rees, Steven A. Sobel, Matthew G. Kleiner and Brandon D. Saxon, for
Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiffs Richard Klemke, Barry Wang, Wei Wang, Erin Zardouzian, Konstantin
Stoletov and Laurie Gay (collectively plaintiffs) appeal after the trial court granted summary
judgment in favor of ISEC, Inc. on the ground plaintiffs demonstrated no breach of a legal
duty by ISEC and failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation. Plaintiffs contend the
trial court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of ISEC because ISEC did not
raise the issue of breach of duty and triable issues of fact exist as to causation. We agree and
judgment may not be granted on a ground not asserted by the moving party without giving
the opposing party an opportunity to respond"].) Additionally, where the dispositive ground
of law was not asserted in the trial court by the moving party, a reviewing court ordinarily
cannot determine if the trial court's decision was correct unless the record establishes that the
opposing party "could not have shown a triable issue of material fact had the ground of law
been asserted by the moving party." (Juge, supra, at p. 71.)
"Under general negligence principles, . . . a person ordinarily is obligated to exercise
due care in his or her own actions so as not to create an unreasonable risk of injury to others,
and this legal duty generally is owed to the class of persons who it is reasonably foreseeable
may be injured as the result of the actor's conduct." (Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol
5
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 703, 716.) The elements of a cause of action for negligence are duty,
breach of the duty, causation, and damages. (Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604,
614.)
Here, ISEC sought summary judgment on the ground each plaintiff could not
establish the necessary elements of causation or compensable damages. Accordingly, in
drafting its motion, ISEC necessarily assumed that triable issues of fact existed on the
precursor elements of duty and breach of duty. (Paz v. State of California (2000) 22 Cal.4th
550, 559 [existence of a duty is the threshold element of a negligence cause of action].) The
trial court disagreed, concluding that plaintiffs "demonstrated no breach of a legal duty by
ISEC." As to plaintiff Barry Wang, the trial court cited to specific portions of ISEC's
moving papers to conclude that ISEC "properly tendered the issue of duty in its moving
papers."
Review of ISEC's moving papers, including the portions of the record cited by the
trial court, refutes the trial court's finding that ISEC argued the issues of duty or breach of
duty. The evidence cited by the trial court generally established that UCSD contracted with
ISEC to install cabinets, that multiple contractors worked at the site and that two uncapped
pipes were found behind cabinets. This evidence does not address the scope of duty for a
cabinet installer such as ISEC or whether ISEC breached its duty of care. ISEC's moving
points and authorities cited a general statement of law that a negligence cause of action
requires a plaintiff prove duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. ISEC,
however, never argued that it did not owe plaintiffs a duty of care or that the undisputed facts
showed no breach of its duty.
6
Additionally, ISEC conceded at oral argument before us that it did not raise the issues
of duty or breach of duty in its moving papers and that it did not present any evidence on
these issues. It also admitted that it presented no evidence that it did not breach the duty of
care alleged by plaintiffs to perform its work in a "competent and workmanlike manner in
accordance with applicable contract, plans and specifications as well as all applicable
building codes, regulations, and manufacturer specifications" so as not to expose plaintiffs to
toxic substances.
Nonetheless, a trial court may decide a summary judgment motion on a ground of law
not explicitly tendered by the moving party if it provides the party opposing the motion an
opportunity to respond to the ground of law identified by the court and "show there is a
triable issue of fact material to said ground of law." (Juge, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 70.)
The trial court violated plaintiffs' right to due process by depriving them of a meaningful
opportunity to present additional argument and evidence.
In its tentative ruling, the trial court did not give plaintiffs leave of court to present
additional argument and evidence on the elements of duty or breach thereof. At oral
argument below, plaintiffs correctly argued to the trial court that it did not present any
evidence on duty or breach of duty because ISEC did not put these elements at issue in its
motion. At this point, the trial court should have continued the motion to allow the parties to
present argument and evidence on these issues. It did not do so. Instead, the trial court
summarily rejected plaintiffs' argument, stating "so far you haven't persuaded me that my
tentative is wrong." We fail to see what more plaintiffs could have done to show the trial
court the error of its ways.
7
At oral argument below, the trial court and plaintiffs agreed that plaintiffs would raise
their grievances to the court's actions in a reconsideration motion. Plaintiffs filed a
reconsideration motion, noting therein that defendants served written notice of entry of the
ruling by mail on February 22, 2012. (All further date references are to 2012.) Thus,
plaintiffs had 10 "days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order" to
file a motion for reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) Although the
reconsideration motion in the record on appeal is not date stamped, it was dated February 29.
Thus, the motion appears to have been timely filed.
ISEC, however, submitted a judgment and the court signed the judgment on
February 28, before plaintiffs filed their reconsideration motion. This act automatically
deprived the court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion. (Safeco Ins. Co. v. Architectural
Facades Unlimited, Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1482 ["It is well settled that entry of
judgment divests the trial court of authority to rule on a motion for reconsideration."].) The
trial court denied the reconsideration motion based on lack of jurisdiction, again stated that
ISEC tendered the issue of duty in its moving papers and found that plaintiffs' counsel did
not have a valid reason for not presenting its expert declaration earlier. (The concurrence
notes that plaintiffs did not appeal the denial of their reconsideration motion. (Post,
Concurrence at fn. 4.) This is not surprising as the trial court properly ruled that it lacked
jurisdiction to decide the motion.) ISEC's act of submitting a judgment to the trial court
before the 10 days expired for plaintiffs to seek reconsideration appears underhanded as the
trial court and plaintiffs agreed that plaintiffs would raise their complaint to the court's
actions in a reconsideration motion. This act deprived plaintiffs of their opportunity to
8
address the trial court's procedural error. Moreover, a party opposing a motion for summary
judgment has no obligation to present any evidence until the moving party meets its initial
burden of production. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454,
468.) By requiring plaintiffs to file a reconsideration motion containing evidence on the
elements of duty and breach thereof the trial court compounded the problem as plaintiffs had
no obligation to present any evidence on these elements until ISEC met its initial burden of
proof.
In summary, the trial court violated the plaintiffs' right to due process by deciding the
summary judgment motion on a ground not raised by ISEC because it did so without giving
plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity to respond. Additionally, as we shall discuss, the record
was never fully developed on the legal question of duty and the record fails to establish as a
matter of law that plaintiffs could not have shown a triable issue of material fact had the
issue of breach of duty been argued by ISEC. (Juge, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th at p. 71.)
ISEC contends the trial court properly rejected plaintiffs' argument, raised for the first
time at the hearing on the motion, that it was below the standard of care for a cabinetmaker
to install a cabinet that covered up an uncapped waste pipe. Specifically, ISEC argues it did
not have a duty to cap the waste pipes as the evidence shows Reed was contracted to cap the
waste pipes and plaintiffs are improperly raising for the first time the allegation that ISEC
had a duty to not install the cabinetry in front of the uncapped waste lines. We disagree. We
begin our review by examining the elements of the causes of action alleged by plaintiffs and
scrutinizing the allegations of plaintiffs' complaint.
9
As codified in Evidence Code section 669, the negligence per se doctrine creates a
presumption of negligence if four elements are established: "(1) the defendant violated a
statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity; (2) the violation proximately caused death
or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the
nature of which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the
person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of
persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted." (Galvez v.
Frields (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420.) The elements of a cause of action for
negligence are duty, breach of the duty, causation and damages. (Artiglio v. Corning Inc.,
supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 614.) "The existence of a legal duty to use reasonable care in a
particular factual situation is a question of law for the court to decide. [Citation.] However,
the elements of breach of that duty and causation are ordinarily questions of fact for the
jury's determination." (Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269,
278.) Causation may also be a question of law if the facts are undisputed and only one
conclusion can be drawn. (Nichols v. Keller (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1687.)
Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that ISEC's "act" was the installation of cabinetry
in the Klemke Lab. In their negligence per se cause of action, plaintiffs asserted that the
work done by defendants violated applicable California building and plumbing codes and
defendants' negligence caused them damages. In their negligence claim, plaintiffs alleged
that all defendants, including ISEC, owed them a duty to perform their work in a "competent
and workmanlike manner in accordance with applicable contract, plans and specifications as
well as all applicable building codes, regulations, and manufacturer specifications" so as not
10
to expose plaintiffs to toxic substances from the building, including the acid waste line drain
system. Plaintiffs asserted that defendants, including ISEC, breached their respective duties
because two acid waste lines were not capped, which exposed them to toxic substances. As a
proximate result of these breaches of duty, plaintiffs claim they suffered damages.
"Negligence may be alleged in general terms; that is, it is sufficient to allege an act
was negligently done without stating the particular omission which rendered it negligent.
[Citations.] '[T]here is no requirement that [the plaintiff] identify and allege the precise
moment of the injury, or the exact nature of the wrongful act.' " (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147
Cal.App.4th 740, 747-748.) Here, the complaint does not allege that any of the defendants
had a specific duty to cap the waste pipes; rather, plaintiffs generally alleged that all
defendants owed them a duty of care to perform their work in accordance with contracts,
plans and specifications, building codes, regulations, and manufacturer specifications so as
not to expose them to toxic substances.
While it is undisputed that Reed was contractually obligated to cap the waste pipes,
this fact does not absolve ISEC of its potential duty of care as alleged by plaintiffs.
Moreover, ISEC argued on appeal that expert testimony was necessary to establish the scope
of its duty and the applicable standard of care. Notably, ISEC presented no such evidence
and, as plaintiffs correctly note, the trial court erred when it chided plaintiffs for failing to
present such evidence as ISEC had not met its initial burden of production. (Aguilar v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [the burden of production does not shift
unless the moving party carries its initial burden].)
11
Simply put, the trial court improperly decided the legal question of whether a duty
existed on an incomplete factual record and required plaintiffs to present evidence on the
issues of duty and breach of duty in their reconsideration motion when ISEC did not meet its
initial burden of production on these issues in its summary judgment motion. We part
company with our concurring colleague as we believe an analysis based on Rowland v.
Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 is premature because ISEC did not move for summary
judgment on this ground, presented absolutely no evidence on the Rowland factors and stated
in its respondent's brief that expert testimony is necessary to determine the duty issue.
Nonetheless, we may affirm the ruling if it is correct on any ground, regardless of the
trial court's stated reasons. (Stratton v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1071,
1083.) Here, ISEC properly tendered the elements of causation and damages in its notice of
motion as to each plaintiff and these issues were fully briefed by the parties. Accordingly,
we examine whether ISEC met its initial burden of showing plaintiffs' negligence and
negligence per se causes of action had no merit by putting forth evidence that the elements of
causation or damages could not be established. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o) &
(p)(2).) ISEC generally argued that all plaintiffs could not establish causation because they
could not show what the alleged odors were composed of, that they were exposed to any
hazardous substances or what caused their symptoms. ISEC reasoned that because plaintiffs
were not injured, they suffered no damages. ISEC presented evidence suggesting each
plaintiff could not establish exposure to any hazardous substances or physical injury
attributable to any such exposure. Accordingly, ISEC met its initial burden of proof and the
12
burden shifted to plaintiffs to show a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (p)(2).)
Plaintiffs satisfied their burden. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs presented
declarations from three experts. Jim Tarr, a chemical engineer, addressed the mechanism of
delivery of toxic or noxious chemicals and the likely sources of exposure to the plaintiffs.
Dr. Rod O'Connor, an environmental chemical toxicologist, rendered opinions regarding
chemical exposure and drew conclusions as to whether the injuries suffered were causally
related to chemical exposure. Finally, Ralph Szaras, an industrial hygienist, inspected the
Klemke Lab and tested the air in the early part of January 2012.
Szaras's testing revealed a "chemical fog" that "smelled foul" and corroded brass
fittings and plastic on the sampling container. Testing by Tarr revealed two toxic chemicals
(acetonirile and xylene) in an uncapped waste line. Tarr opined that the waste lines likely
contaminated the air in the Klemke Lab with noxious or toxic chemicals. Based on the
nature of the odors, Dr. O'Connor identified four chemicals used in some laboratories
connected to the faulty drain system that could cause the physical symptoms suffered by
plaintiffs. Dr. O'Connor concluded that the faulty drainage system exposed plaintiffs to toxic
chemicals, that the odors caused the symptoms that plaintiffs experienced, that plaintiffs
suffered physical injuries consistent with exposure to one or more toxic chemicals and had
an increased risk for long-term health effects. From this evidence a trier of fact could
reasonably infer that the odors that caused plaintiffs' physical symptoms were toxic and came
from the uncapped waste lines. Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting summary
judgment based on lack of causation. Because the record is devoid of any evidence
13
regarding the scope of ISEC's duty of care, we express no opinion on the ultimate merit of
plaintiffs' claims.
Finally, we note that ISEC argued in its respondent's brief that the trial court
should have granted its alternative request for summary adjudication of plaintiffs' claims
for damages for fear of cancer (including past medical expenses), medical monitoring and
loss of earning capacity. This matter is not properly before us. Plaintiffs did not raise
this issue in its opening brief and ISEC failed to file a cross-appeal. (California State
Employees' Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 372, 382, fn. 7 [a
respondent who does not appeal from the judgment may not argue error on appeal].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs on appeal.
McINTYRE, J. I CONCUR:
IRION, J.
14
BENKE, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I write separately to make clear two points. First, I wholeheartedly agree with the
majority that this court has not decided the issue of whether ISEC, Inc. owed a duty of
care sounding in tort to plaintiffs. (See maj. opn. ante, at p. 11 ["While it is undisputed
that [the plumbing subcontractor] was contractually obligated to cap the waste pipes, this
fact does not absolve ISEC of its potential duty of care as alleged by plaintiffs." (Italics
added.)].) I further note the trial court likewise did not reach that issue, despite the
majority's statement otherwise (see maj. opn. ante, at p. 12 ["Simply put, the trial court
improperly decided the legal question of whether a duty existed on an incomplete factual
record . . . ."]), when it granted summary judgment in favor of ISEC, as the record shows
the court found no triable issue of material fact on the issues of breach and causation.
Second, assuming the parties on remand tee up the duty issue, I have reservations
whether plaintiffs can establish that ISEC owed them a duty of care. Looking at the
entire1 record and considering that ISEC was merely a subcontractor/cabinet installer
under a third-party contract with the University of California, San Diego (UCSD)
involving a project to renovate a school laboratory, in my view, the duty factors outlined
by our Supreme Court in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (Rowland) suggest
ISEC may not owe such a duty.
1 I say entire because I am including the "evidence" plaintiffs proffered on the issue of duty—as opposed to the breach thereof—in the declaration of their general contractor expert, Larry J. Gliko, in support of their motion for reconsideration that the trial court did not consider when it denied that motion.
That said, I recognize the majority's point that plaintiffs should at least be afforded
an opportunity to brief any issue that the trial court uses as a basis to grant summary
judgment. Therefore, I concur in the majority decision to remand the case on the grounds
the trial court violated plaintiffs' due process rights when it decided ISEC's motion for
summary judgment on a ground neither raised by ISEC nor briefed by plaintiffs.
OVERVIEW
ISEC was one of several defendants that participated in the renovation of a
laboratory (the Klemke lab) at UCSD. ISEC was contracted by UCSD to build
laboratory cabinetry in the Klemke lab. About four years after ISEC completed its work,
two glass acid waste lines were found uncapped. Plaintiffs Richard Klemke, Barry
Wang, Wei Wang, Erin Zardouzian, Konstantin Stoletov and Laurie Gay worked in the
Klemke lab. They sued the general contractor RSM2 Contractors, Inc. (RSM2), the
plumbing subcontractor A.O. Reed & Co. (A.O. Reed) and ISEC for negligence as a
result of their exposure to "toxic, noxious, and/or hazardous liquids, gasses and solids
from . . . the acid waste line drain system" (toxic substances).
Plaintiffs in their operative complaint alleged that defendants ISEC, RSM2 and
A.O. Reed owed them a duty "to perform works of demolition, construction, renovation,
inspection, and testing at the [Klemke lab] in a competent and workmanlike manner in
accordance with applicable contract, plans, and specifications as well as all applicable
building codes, regulations, and manufacturer specifications so that said individuals
would not be exposed" to toxic substances. They further alleged defendants breached
2
that duty and caused them injury because the uncapped waste lines were "hidden,
concealed and not observable by a reasonable person and [p]laintiffs were not aware of,
nor could they reasonably . . . have become aware of, the physical cause of their injuries
and the negligent acts and defective conditions which caused their injuries before such
discovery."
ISEC2 moved for summary judgment/adjudication as to each of the six plaintiffs.3
ISEC contended in its moving papers that plaintiffs could not establish ISEC caused them
to suffer compensable damages. ISEC alternatively contended that as a matter of law
plaintiffs could not recover " 'damages for fear of cancer and any past medical expenses
stemming therefrom, damages for medical monitoring, and damages for loss of earning
capacity.' "
The trial court granted ISEC's motion(s) for summary judgment against plaintiffs.
In so doing, the court noted in its order that in addition to moving for summary judgment
on the issue of causation and damages, ISEC also "properly tendered the issue of duty in
2 RSM2 and A.O. Reed also separately filed motions for summary judgment/adjudication. The trial court denied the motions for summary judgment of RSM2 and A.O. Reed in part because it found each owed a duty of care to plaintiffs in connection with the uncapped waste lines. The court, however, granted their alternative motions for summary adjudication on plaintiffs' claim for damages for fear of future injury. Because the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ISEC, it did not reach ISEC's separate request for summary adjudication on this same issue.
3 Although ISEC filed six separate motions for summary judgment/adjudication, in my review of the record I note, as do the parties, that the motions are substantially similar. This view was also shared by the trial court. Thus, unless otherwise indicated, my discussion refers and applies to each of the six individual summary judgment motions. 3
its moving papers." The court, however, did not use duty as the basis to grant summary
judgment; instead, the court found that plaintiffs did not provide "a hint of evidence
linking the uncapped waste pipe to any work performed in the [Klemke lab] by ISEC in
2004" and that plaintiffs, in their additional undisputed material facts, admitted that ISEC
was not "in any manner responsible for [capping] the acid waste pipes. The court thus
granted summary judgment because plaintiffs "failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to
causation with respect to ISEC[] and . . . demonstrated no breach of a legal duty by
ISEC . . . ." (Italics added.)
Plaintiffs subsequently moved for reconsideration based on new and additional
facts. As relevant here, plaintiffs in that motion included the declaration of their general
contracting expert, Larry Gliko, who opined in part as follows:
"I was retained as an expert for plaintiffs in this matter in or about March 2011.
My first visit to the site was on March 29, 2011. I personally observed the areas where
the uncapped drain lines were found. I have reviewed the plans form the 2004 renovation
undertaken by defendants in this matter. I have reviewed the pertinent provisions of the
contract between the University of California, San Diego and RSM2, the general
contractor. I have also reviewed pertinent portions of the testimony of Douglas Reed
from A. O. Reed, and Robert Samuel from RSM2 [citations]. I have experience with a
knowledge of installation of casework as a result of my work as a general contractor and
forensic expert. Casework is typically installed at the end of construction or remodel as
part of the 'finish' work. The standard of practice and the standard of care for casework
4
installers is that they not cover up defective or incomplete work done by others. This
standard of practice and standard of care is particularly applicable to open drain lines. A
casework installer has a duty not to cover up open drain lines." (Italics added.)
Plaintiffs contended this evidence was not available previously because the parties
had just recently designated their experts and because plaintiffs did not understand the
issue of duty was part of ISEC's summary judgment motion.
As noted, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration as it related to ISEC
on the basis it was untimely because plaintiffs filed the motion after judgment was
entered in favor of ISEC.4 The court thus found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion.
DISCUSSION
A. Guiding Principles
The elements of a cause of action for negligence are: duty, breach of duty, legal
cause and damages. (Ahern v. Dillenback (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 36, 42.) The existence
of a duty is the "threshold element" of a negligence cause of action (Friedman v. Merck
& Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 463) and is a question of law for the court. (Ann M.
v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674 (Ann M.), disapproved on
other grounds by Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 527, fn. 5.) "Duty, being a
4 Plaintiffs' appeal does not include the order denying their motion for reconsideration. That being the case, the reconsideration motion is significant because, as I noted, it included the "evidence" plaintiffs proffered (after the trial court already had granted summary judgment against them) in an attempt to establish ISEC owed them a duty of care. 5
question of law, is particularly amendable to resolution by summary judgment."
(Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456, 465.)
"A judicial conclusion that a duty is present or absent is merely '"a shorthand
statement . . . rather than an aid to analysis . . . . '[D]uty,' is not sacrosanct in itself, but
only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law
to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection."' [Citation.] 'Courts, however,
have invoked the concept of duty to limit generally "the otherwise potentially infinite
liability which would follow from every negligent act . . . ."' [Citation.]" (Bily v. Arthur
Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, 397; see also Ludwig v. City of San Diego (1998) 65
Cal.App.4th 1105, 1110.)
A duty of care generally arises through statute, contract, the general character of
the activity, or the relationship between the parties. (J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24
Cal.3d 799, 803.) Here, plaintiffs and ISEC were not parties to a contract. In addition,
the Gliko declaration does not point to any statute, building code or regulation to support
his opinion that ISEC owed a duty of care to plaintiffs.
Finally, it does not appear there is any relationship between the parties that, in my
view, would give rise to a duty. (See Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th
1112, 1129 [observing that a duty of care may arise if "'"a special relation exists between
the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third
person's conduct, or . . . a special relation exists between the actor and the other which
gives the other a right to protection"'"].)
6
Thus, it appears that any duty owed by ISEC to plaintiffs would necessarily arise
through the general character of ISEC's activities. (See Reliance Nat. Indemnity Co. v.
General Star Indemnity Co. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1074 [noting a reviewing court
reviews a trial court's ruling and "not its rationale" when determining whether the grant of
summary judgment was proper and, thus, a court of review is not bound by the trial
court's stated reasons and will affirm the judgment if correct on any theory advanced].)
B. Duty of Care Factors
The factors to be considered in the duty analysis include: (1) the foreseeability of
harm to the injured party; (2) the degree of certainty that the injured party suffered harm;
(3) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury
suffered; (4) the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct; (5) the policy of
preventing future harm; (6) the extent of the burden on the defendant and the
consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting
potential liability. (See Rowland, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 112-113; see also Ann M.,
supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 675, fn. 5 [using Rowland factors in determining shopping center
did not owe a duty to a tenant's employee to provide security to patrol the common areas
of a shopping center where the plaintiff was raped].)
1. Foreseeability of Harm
In assessing the foreseeability factor, a court of review does not decide whether a
plaintiff's particular injuries were reasonably foreseeable as a result of the particular
actions of a defendant; rather, we "evaluate more generally whether the category of
7
negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm experienced
that liability may appropriately be imposed on the negligent party." (Ballard v. Uribe
(1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 572-573, fn. 6.) Foreseeability is determined in light of the totality
of the circumstances and balanced against the burden to be imposed. (Ann M., supra, 6
Cal.4th at pp. 677-678.)
Further, to support a duty of care, the foreseeability must be reasonable. (Juarez v.
Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 402.) "The reasonableness
standard is a test which determines if, in the opinion of a court, the degree of
foreseeability is high enough to charge the defendant with the duty to act on it. If injury
to another '"is likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonably thoughtful
[person] would take account of it in guiding practical conduct"' [citations], we must label
the injury 'reasonably foreseeable' and go on to balance the other Rowland
considerations." (Sturgeon v. Curnutt (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 301, 307.)
However, foreseeability alone is not sufficient to create an independent tort duty.
"Because the consequences of a negligent act must be limited to avoid an intolerable
burden on society [citation], the determination of duty 'recognizes that policy
considerations may dictate a cause of action should not be sanctioned no matter how
foreseeable the risk.' [Citation.] '[T]here are clear judicial days on which a court can
foresee forever and thus determine liability but none on which that foresight alone
provides a socially and judicially acceptable limit on recovery of damages for [an]
injury.' [Citation.] In short, foreseeability is not synonymous with duty; nor is it a
8
substitute." (Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 552 see also Friedman v. Merck &
Co. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 454, 465–466 [noting that "[m]ore than a mere possibility of
occurrence is required since, with hindsight, everything is foreseeable"].)
Here, I conclude the foreseeability factor may favor ISEC. In my view, it is not
reasonable to require a cabinet installer to foresee that, in installing cabinetry in the
Klemke lab pursuant to a contract with UCSD, ISEC would be liable in tort four years
later for injuries to third parties due to the failure of the plumber and/or general
contractor to install one or more caps on waste lines that ISEC had absolutely nothing to
do with. (See N.N.V. v. American Assn. of Blood Banks (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1358,
1376 [noting that "'"[w]ithout evidence that a defendant knew or reasonably should have
known there was any danger or potential danger associated with that defendant's act or
failure to act, any imposition of liability would in essence be the imposition of liability
without fault"'"].)
That said, the record shows plaintiffs generally alleged in their operative
complaint that defendants (including ISEC) owed them a duty to perform their work in
accordance with applicable contracts, plans, and specifications as well as with all
applicable building codes, regulations and specifications and that defendants breached
that duty because the waste lines were uncapped and hidden. On remand, if the issue of
duty or breach thereof arises, plaintiffs will then have a chance to proffer evidence to
support these general allegations.5
5 As noted ante, the Gliko declaration includes merely a one-line sentence generally stating that ISEC (allegedly) owed plaintiffs a duty not to cover up the waste lines. 9
2. Degree of Certainty Plaintiffs Suffered Harm
Here, the record shows the trial court granted the summary adjudication motions
of RSM2 and A.O. Reed concerning plaintiffs' claims for damages related to fear of
future injury. The court did not rule on ISEC's similar summary adjudication motion
because it granted summary judgment for ISEC.
Nonetheless, the court's ruling denying the motions for summary judgment of
RSM2 and A.O. Reed states plaintiffs proffered sufficient evidence to show they suffered
injury from exposure to the toxic substances. As such, I conclude this factor may favor
the plaintiffs.
3. Connection Between ISEC's Conduct and the Injury Suffered
This factor, in my view, may favor ISEC. As noted, ISEC was not responsible for
the uncapped waste lines in the Klemke lab, as plaintiffs readily admit as follows in their
omnibus opposition to the summary judgment motions (omnibus opposition):
"This is a negligence case where the six individual [p]laintiffs suffered physical
injuries as a result of the ingestion of toxic substances that entered their lab through
uncapped glass laboratory waste lines. . . . When, in October 2008, not one, but two,
uncapped laboratory waste lines were located and capped the [p]laintiffs' physical
symptoms ceased. . . .
"Interestingly, the only [d]efendant arguing against liability ('not my scope of
work') is A.O. Reed—the plumbing subcontractor who admits to being responsible for all
plumbing work during a 2004 remodel of the space where the uncapped lines were found.
10
There is substantial evidence that contravenes A.O. Reed's denial of liability. The
evidence includes its subcontract with RSM2 (the general contractor) where its scope of
work specifically includes waste lines. It also includes the plans that show the 'point of
removal' for plumbing lines at the very location where the first uncapped line was found
in 2008 hidden behind casework [i.e., cabinetry] installed as part of the renovation.
". . .The [plaintiffs'] experts' investigation has established a causal connection
between the uncapped drain lines and the [p]laintiffs' physical injuries. Toxic substances
were the source of the odor. The open lines hidden by cabinetry installed in 2004 vented
toxic substances into the [Klemke lab] where [p]laintiffs worked for two and a half
years." (Italics added.)
In discussing A.O. Reed's role in the remodel, the omnibus opposition further
notes that A.O. Reed's subcontract with RSM2 provides that the "'[s]cope of [w]ork'" of
the plumber A.O. Reed included: "[l]ab vacuum piping," "[g]as piping," "[w]aste and
vent piping," "[i]ndustrial hot and cold water piping," "[i]nsulation" and "[d]emolition."
(Italics added.) In addition, the omnibus opposition refers to the testimony of the project
manager of A.O. Reed who admitted it was "his company's responsibility to do the 2004
[r]enovation demolition and plumbing" and it was "their responsibility to cap the pipes
that were removed to the point of removal." The principal of RSM2 further testified "that
all plumbing work was the responsibility of A.O. Reed and there was no one else on the
site qualified to cap the acid waste line pipes."
11
In specifically discussing the issue of duty in the omnibus opposition, plaintiffs
noted that "[e]veryone agrees that A.O. Reed was responsible for all plumbing work on
the project," repeated that the plumber's scope of work specifically included " '[w]aste
and vent piping'" and "'[d]emolition'" and finally concluded that it was A.O. Reed's "job"
to cap the waste lines since "[t]hey were the plumbers." In my view, the required "close"
connection (see Rowland, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 113) may be lacking between ISEC's
conduct in installing the cabinetry and the injury plaintiffs suffered as a result of the
conduct of others responsible for the plumbing in the Klemke lab.
4. Moral Blame
"Moral blame has been applied to describe a defendant's culpability in terms of the
defendant's state of mind and the inherently harmful nature of the defendant's acts. . . .
[C]ourts have required a higher degree of moral culpability such as where the defendant
(1) intended or planned the harmful result [citation]; (2) had actual or constructive
knowledge of the harmful consequences of [the defendant's] behavior [citation]; (3) acted
in bad faith or with a reckless indifference to the results of [the defendant's] conduct
[citations]; or (4) engaged in inherently harmful acts [citation]." (Adams v. City of
Fremont (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 243, 270.)
I conclude this factor may favor ISEC for the same reason as the preceding factor.
ISEC merely installed cabinetry in the Klemke lab pursuant to its contract with UCSD.
Although there is no evidence in the current record that ISEC had actual or constructive
knowledge that it was placing its cabinetry over uncapped lines that it was not
12
responsible for, on remand to the extent this becomes an issue the plaintiffs will have the
opportunity to proffer any such evidence (or any other evidence) they believe is relevant
to this analysis.
5. Prevention of Future Harm
I conclude that attaching potential liability to ISEC's conduct likely may not
prevent future harm, inasmuch as the current record shows ISEC had absolutely no
control over the waste lines, including capping such lines. Thus, in my view, this factor
may also tend to favor ISEC.
6. Burden on ISEC and Consequences to the Community
Based on the current record, in my view the burden on ISEC and the
consequences to the community of imposing a duty in this case may be unacceptable. A
"person may not ordinarily recover in tort for the breach of duties that merely restate
contractual obligations. Instead, '"[c]ourts will generally enforce the breach of a
contractual promise through contract law, except when the actions that constitute the
breach violate a social policy that merits the imposition of tort remedies."' [Citations.]"
(Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 643, superseded by statute on another
ground as stated in Rosen v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1070, 1079;
see also Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 989 [noting
that conduct constituting a breach of contract is tortious only when it also violates a duty
independent of the contract arising from principles of tort law]; see also Freeman &
Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 85, 95 [reiterating the "important
13
differences between contract and tort theories of recovery" and noting "that limiting
contract breach damages to those within the reasonably foreseeable contemplation of the
parties when the contract was formed 'serves to encourage contractual relations and
commercial activity by enabling parties to estimate in advance the financial risks of their
enterprise' "].)
Imposing a duty on ISEC in this case may saddle it "with a burden of uncertain but
potentially very large scope. One of the consequences to the community of such an
extension is the cost of insuring against liability of unknown but potentially massive
dimension." (See Oddone v. Superior Court (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 813, 822 [refusing
to impose a duty on an employer for injuries sustained by employee's surviving spouse
who sued employer for negligence alleging injury by secondary exposure to toxic vapors
and chemicals allegedly carried home by employee on his clothes and person].)
In sum, when applied to the current record, it appears the Rowland factors may
support the conclusion that ISEC would not owe plaintiffs a duty sounding in tort.
However, because the duty issue was neither raised nor briefed below, I concur with the
majority that the matter should be remanded to allow the parties to brief it (and any
others) on a full and complete record before it may be the basis of summary judgment.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
14
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it decided the motion on the issues of duty and breach of duty, which the defendant did not raise in its moving papers, thereby violating the plaintiffs' due process rights. Additionally, the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding causation, precluding summary judgment on that ground.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on grounds of duty and breach of duty that were not raised by the defendant in its moving papers.
Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to establish a triable issue of material fact regarding causation.
Whether the trial court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration after entering judgment.
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court violated the plaintiffs' right to due process by deciding the summary judgment motion on a ground not raised by ISEC because it did so without giving plaintiffs a meaningful opportunity to respond.”
“ISEC's moving points and authorities cited a general statement of law that a negligence cause of action requires a plaintiff prove duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. ISEC, however, never argued that it did not owe plaintiffs a duty”
“From this evidence a trier of fact could reasonably infer that the odors that caused plaintiffs' physical symptoms were toxic and came from the uncapped waste lines. Accordingly, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment based on lack”