 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morris v. 2212 Cahuenga Ltd.12/28/2001
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Steve Morris appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of respondents, the owners and managers of the apartment complex where Morris was injured in a fall from a third floor balcony. Having found that respondents breached no duty owed to Morris, we affirm.
On appeal from an order granting summary judgment, we independently examine the record to determine the existence of triable issues of material fact. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 767.) Since respondents prevailed in their motion for summary judgment below, we review the record de novo to determine whether they have conclusively negated a necessary element of the plaintiff's case or demonstrated that there is no material issue of fact that requires the process of trial under any hypothesis. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 673-674.) We perform this function by viewing the evidence in a light favorable to Morris, liberally construing the evidence he submits while strictly scrutinizing defendants' showing, and resolving any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in Morris' favor. (Saelzler, supra, at p. 768.)
FACTS
On July 25, 1999, Morris went to his friend's apartment, number 306, to water her plants and look after things while she was out of the country. His keys did not work. He contacted a neighbor, Phil Taylor, for assistance.
Taylor had the keys to apartment 305, which shared a balcony with apartment 306, and suggested that he could go around the privacy partition between the two balconies and get into apartment 306 through the sliding glass door. He knew that most of the sliding glass doors on the balconies had been installed backwards, and gaining entry into one of these apartments was a simple matter of taking the door off its track from the outside. He had on occasion gained access to his own apartment in this manner, going from roof-to-balcony or balcony-to-balcony, as had one of the apartment managers and possibly others.
Morris accompanied Taylor to the balcony of apartment 305, and watched as Taylor stepped onto the balcony ledge, maneuvered around the partition, and jumped onto the balcony of apartment 306. Morris decided to follow. He grabbed the partition and climbed onto the balcony ledge maintaining his grasp on the partition. Unbeknownst to him, however, the wooden partition was severely deteriorated. As he shifted his weight over the partition, the end cap came apart in his hand and pulled away from the partition. Morris fell 40 feet and suffered a serious spinal cord injury rendering him a paraplegic.
DISCUSSION
The analysis of landowners' liability for injuries suffered on land in their possession and control is governed by general negligence principles. (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 119.) Whether a legal duty existed is a question of law for the court. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674.) The Rowland court articulated several factors to be considered in determining whether a duty exists, including: "the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff . . . ." (Rowland, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 113.)
The trial court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment, finding respondents owed no duty to Morris. The court stated: "Ultimately, the question's whether defendants k
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|