Bradford v. Mann CA4/1
D068664
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2016Background
- Owner Terrence Mann rented a single-family home with an in-ground pool to an adult tenant; several locking gates and security gates existed, and no pool perimeter fence had been installed while Mann owned the property.
- In May 2013, two toddler children (Bradford's) drowned after exiting the house while the adults in the home (tenant and mother) were unconscious from drug use. The mother later pleaded guilty to felony child abuse. Bradford was incarcerated at the time of the deaths.
- Bradford sued the tenant, the mother, and Mann, alleging negligent supervision by the tenants/mother and wrongful death/premises liability against Mann for failing to install a perimeter pool fence or other safety device.
- Mann moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) Bradford lacked proof of causation (no evidence how children accessed the pool), (2) Mann did not owe the asserted duty (given existing security measures and unforeseeable intervening conduct), and (3) Bradford lacked standing to bring a wrongful-death claim as an unwed father because he provided no admissible proof of contributing to the children’s support.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mann on standing and on the duty issue; Bradford appealed. The appellate court limited review to the evidence before the trial court at the time of the motion (Bradford’s later submission was void because appeal had been perfected). The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring wrongful-death claim (unwed father) | Bradford asserted he provided financial support while incarcerated and via associates, giving him standing under Probate Code §6452. | Mann pointed to Bradford’s discovery responses that were conclusory and lacked dates/documents/witnesses, showing Bradford had no admissible evidence of support. | Held: Mann met initial burden; Bradford failed to raise triable fact—summary judgment for lack of standing affirmed. |
| Existence/scope of duty to install pool perimeter fence | Bradford contended Mann owed a nondelegable duty to maintain premises and should have installed a perimeter fence (relying on Johnson v. Prasad). | Mann argued existing security measures were reasonable; the intervening criminal neglect of the children by their caregiver was unforeseeable and severs causation; imposing a fence duty would exceed customary landlord obligations. | Held: No duty to install an additional perimeter fence as a matter of law under these undisputed facts; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Causation (substantial factor) | Bradford argued lack of fence was a substantial factor and would likely have prevented the drownings. | Mann argued there was no evidence how the children reached the pool, multiple possible routes, and intervening negligent criminal conduct by caregiver made causation too tenuous. | Held: Court found causation too speculative given lack of admissible evidence about route/access and intervening misconduct; no triable issue. |
| Trial court jurisdiction to consider post-appeal evidence/reconsideration motion | Bradford sought to add omitted evidence via reconsideration after filing notice of appeal. | Mann argued notice of appeal divested trial court of jurisdiction so later proceedings were void. | Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction after notice of appeal; the attempted reconsideration was void — appellate review limited to the original summary judgment record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. 21 Century Ins. Co., 42 Cal.4th 713 (explaining appellate review of summary judgment record)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment burdens and shifting burden principles)
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (standards for reviewing summary judgment and burden shifting)
- Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 138 Cal.App.4th 96 (when factually devoid discovery responses justify shifting burden on summary judgment)
- Johnson v. Prasad, 224 Cal.App.4th 74 (court found homeowners renting a house with a maintained pool owed duty to protect a child; discussed in opinion but not extended to these facts)
- Padilla v. Rodas, 160 Cal.App.4th 742 (addressed causation in pool-drowning context; distinguished here)