Slosek v. Gibson CA2/1
Filed 8/28/14 Slosek v. Gibson CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
CANDICE JULIA SLOSEK, B252305
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PC052704) v.
MALCOM GIBSON et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elia Weinbach, Judge. Affirmed. Steinberg & Spencer, Steven E. Spencer; Esner, Chang & Boyer and Andrew N. Chang for Plaintiff and Appellant. Shaver, Korff & Castronovo, Edie L. Brookes and Tod M. Castronovo for Defendants and Respondents.
_________________________________________________
The essence of plaintiff and appellant’s argument is that a property owner has a duty to take whatever care of a visitor to the property a particular visitor is known to need, even if the visitor’s needs are extraordinary, the property does not pose any unreasonable or unseen risk, and the property owner has no special relationship with the visitor. California law is to the contrary. The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm. BACKGROUND The material facts are undisputed. Plaintiff and appellant Candice Julia Slosek is the mother of defendant Malcom Gibson. Mr. Gibson is the husband of defendant Sonja Gibson. The couple have two daughters, Isabella aged five and Sophia aged one. At the time of the accident that is the subject of this litigation, Mrs. Slosek, aged 63, had many disabilities, including a history of not being stable on her feet, a history of falls, multiple cardiac pacemakers, a history of fainting spells and dizziness, osteoarthritis, bipolar disorder, and clinical depression. She took 14 different medications daily. The Gibsons were aware of these conditions prior to the accident and took various precautions to ensure Mrs. Slosek did not hurt herself when she was on the property. Among these were that she was rarely left alone with the children inside the house and Mr. Gibson had told her she should not be outside alone with them. On October 21, 2011, Mrs. Slosek arrived at the Gibsons’ home to baby-sit. Isabella wanted to play outside and Mrs. Gibson said it would be okay if Mrs. Slosek went out with the girls. Mr. Gibson was not in the room at the time. Mrs. Slosek and her granddaughters went out on the back patio alone. Just prior to the accident Isabella was slamming her tricycle like a bumper car into the plastic car in which toddler Sophia was sitting. Isabella refused to stop. Mrs. Slosek testified she told Isabella she was “‘going to step aside, give you some room to come by so that you don’t bump into Sophia and that’s when I fell.’” Mrs. Slosek stepped backward intentionally, and in so doing, fell backward off the edge of the patio onto ground-level shrubbery and a path to the pool, suffering injuries.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)