 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevenson v. Veterans Cab Company1/28/2002
ays before proceeding carefully into the intersection. She observed no oncoming traffic. The passenger in Singh's taxi told police "a car . . . came out of nowhere and hit the taxi on the passenger side and we started spinning." There was nothing Singh could have done to avoid the accident. The investigating police officer determined the cause of the accident was the fleeing vehicle's failure to stop before entering the intersection. The police report stated: "The police department's investigation did not identify any associated or contributing causal factor on the part of the driver of the Veterans taxi." Singh did not fail to yield to an emergency vehicle because the police car was traveling approximately two blocks behind the vehicle carrying Stevenson. Stevenson herself had no recollection of the collision, and did not see the taxi. She was facing the driver of the fleeing vehicle and "hollering at him" before the collision.
A defendant may meet the burden of showing a cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more elements cannot be established because of the absence of evidence on a critical element of the claim. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (Demetry) (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.) The burden then shifts to plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact, based on specific and admissible evidentiary facts. (§ 437c, subd. (o)(2); Arciniega v. Bank of San Bernardino (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 213, 231; Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 201, 210.) "The plaintiff . . . may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto." (§ 437c, subd. (o)(2).) The moving party's papers are strictly construed, and the opposing party's papers are liberally construed. While the opposing party may rely on circumstantial evidence and inferences arising from declarations or other evidence, those inferences must be reasonable, not speculative. (Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 472, 482-483.) Stevenson's stated belief that a jury could find Singh was inattentive and failed to use due care constitutes just such impermissible speculation, and is not supported by the evidence presented to the trial court.
Stevenson's separate statement presented no specific evidence to establish a triable issue of material fact, in response to defendants' showing that plaintiff had no substantial material evidence of any negligence on defendants' part. Stevenson's separate statement did not refer to the observations of witness Mohamad Mohamad, which she now mentions to support her theory that Singh was inattentive, nor does Mohamad's statement create a reasonable inference that Singh was negligent. Summary judgment was properly granted on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
McGuiness, P.J.
Parrilli, J.
Page 1 2 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|