Wells v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. CA1/3

Filed 3/12/21 Wells v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit 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 CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DONNA WELLS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A153548 v. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (City & County of San Francisco RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, Super. Ct. No. CGC-15-545833) Defendant and Respondent.

This is an appeal from judgment in a product liability and premises liability lawsuit brought by plaintiff Donna Wells against defendant San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). Plaintiff Donna Wells argues on appeal that “no justice was done” regarding the outcome of her case and that her previous attorney, who was relieved by the trial court as her counsel in 2017, failed to provide proper representation. We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On May 14, 2015, Wells, represented by counsel, Dean M. Schmidt, filed a complaint against BART asserting causes of action for general negligence, product liability and premises liability. According to this complaint, on October 19, 2014, Wells was injured at BART’s Powell Street Station in San Francisco. As Wells attempted to pass through the automated exit gate, the gate closed, thereby trapping and crushing her against it.

1

Wells allegedly sustained serious injuries to her hip, back, and leg areas. On November 4, 2015, BART filed an answer to the complaint. On November 12, 2015, the trial court ordered the parties to arbitration. Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter requested and was granted dismissal of her general negligence cause of action with prejudice. Accordingly, the parties proceeded to arbitration on only the product liability and premises liability causes of action. On May 15, 2017, the arbitrator denied both of Wells’s claims and ordered the parties to bear their own costs. On July 11, 2017, Wells requested a trial de novo after judicial arbitration, which the court set for November 13, 2017. On July 24, 2017, Schmidt moved to be relieved as counsel on the grounds that Wells failed to inform him that she had a felony conviction for “health fraud.” The trial court granted his motion, and Wells appeared in propria persona for the court trial on November 13, 2017. After Wells presented photographic evidence and testified on her own behalf, BART moved for a nonsuit. After briefly taking the matter under submission, the trial court granted BART’s motion on December 6, 2017, finding that Wells failed to present sufficient evidence to prove an element necessary to her case, to wit, the existence of a dangerous condition. On January 23, 2018, the court entered a final judgment in favor of BART and against Wells. Wells filed a timely notice of appeal of the court’s December 6, 2017 order, which we interpret to encompass the subsequent January 23, 2018 judgment. (Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 21.)