Williams v. De Anda Enterprises CA4/3

Filed 7/7/23 Williams v. De Anda Enterprises CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

AMY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G060609

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2015-00820833)

DE ANDA ENTERPRISES, INC. OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard J. Oberholzer, Judge. Affirmed. B&D Law Group, Daniel D. Geoulla, Michael B. Geoola, Mahsa Farid; Law Offices of Clinton Ehrlich and Clinton E. Ehrlich for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hall Griffin and John T. Griffin for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Plaintiff Amy Williams appeals from a judgment entered against her after a jury trial on her negligence and premises liability claims against defendant De Anda Enterprises, Inc., which owned and operated a restaurant at which she slipped and fell. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by admitting a sample floor tile offered by defendant into evidence, permitting the jury to examine and inspect the tile during deliberation, and making hostile or prejudicial comments with the jury present. We conclude these arguments lack merit and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Amy Williams visited defendant’s restaurant in 2013. It was drizzling. While carrying her order out of the restaurant, plaintiff slipped and fell on floor tiles outside the restaurant. She was seriously injured. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence and premises liability. At trial, plaintiff and defendant each offered testimony from an expert witness regarding the slip resistance of the tiles outside the restaurant. Defendant’s expert testified her testing of the tiles outside the restaurant showed a very high slip resistance, meaning the slipperiness of the floor surface was not likely the cause of plaintiff’s fall. Plaintiff’s expert testified he also found the slip resistance of the tiles to be adequate at the time of his testing. However, he also opined this type of tile would become less slippery over time with wear, and therefore the testing he and defendant’s expert conducted was not necessarily indicative of the condition of the tile years earlier on the day of the accident. In response to plaintiff’s expert’s criticism, defendant’s expert tested a sample piece of unused tile provided by defendant. This testing showed higher slip resistance on the unused tile than the worn tile. The defense also produced an unused replacement tile of the same type, purchased in 2018. The unused tile tested by defendant’s expert was another replacement tile, purchased at the same time. Over plaintiff’s objection, the unused replacement tile produced by the defense at trial was