 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Talasazan v. Northridge Arena Soccer League12/4/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Law Offices of Roya Mohammadi and Roya Mohammadi for Defendant and Respondent Northridge Arena Soccer League, Inc. and Kanan Kadjar.
Plaintiff David Talasazan appeals from the summary judgments entered for defendants Northridge Tennis Club, Northridge Arena Soccer League and Kanan Kadjar in this premises liability action based on the failure to provide adequate security guards. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgments.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
David Talasazan was beaten and seriously injured the night of July 23, 1998, by opposing players from a soccer match he had just finished playing. When Talasazan went to shake the hand of Hector Valenzuela, one of the opposing players, Valenzuela punched him several times. Talasazan at first tried to fend off the blows, telling Valenzuela that he did not want to fight. When Valenzuela continued his attack, Talasazan fought back. Several other players from Valenzuela's team then joined in the attack, bringing Talasazan's two brothers and more members of the opposing team into the fray. After about five minutes, Talasazan was struck in the eye and blacked out.
The league that Talasazan and Valenzuela played in was operated by the Northridge Arena Soccer League (the League). League matches were played at an indoor facility that the League leased from the Northridge Tennis Club (the Club). Talasazan sued the Club, the League, and League President Kanan Kadjar for negligence, alleging that they breached their duty to provide security guards at the matches.
In May 2001 the Club moved for summary judgment, contending that as a matter of law it had no duty to provide security guards at the games and that its failure to do so did not cause Talasazan's injuries. The Club also contended that Talasazan assumed the risk of his injuries and that he waived his claims by signing a League release form before playing. The motion was granted and judgment for the Club was entered in July 2001. The trial court based its order on findings that any breach of duty by the Club did not cause Talasazan's injuries.
The League and Kadjar then filed a summary judgment motion which was a virtual clone of the Club's moving papers. The League's motion was granted on two grounds: (1) the League's conduct did not cause Talasazan's injuries; and (2) the release form Talasazan signed relieved the League of any duty to provide security at the games. Judgment for the League and Kadjar was entered, and this appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is granted when a moving party establishes the right to the entry of judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 437c, subd. (c).) In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we must assume the role of the trial court and redetermine the merits of the motion. In doing so, we must strictly scrutinize the moving party's papers. The declarations of the party opposing summary judgment, however, are liberally construed to determine the existence of triable issues of fact. All doubts as to whether any material, triable issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. While the appellate court must review a summary judgment motion by the same standards as the trial court, it must independently determine as a matter of law the construction and effect of th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|