Carlsen v. Koivumaki
227 Cal. App. 4th 879
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Oct. 4–5, 2008, plaintiff Jason Carlsen (intoxicated) left a party with defendants Sarah Koivumaki and Zachary Gudelunas; they went to a cliff (“the Bluffs”) where Jason fell and was severely injured. Jason has no memory of the events at the Bluffs.
- Jason sued for assault & battery, negligence, willful misconduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging defendants brought him to the cliff while intoxicated and delayed summoning help for hours.
- Sarah moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted judgment for Sarah on all causes of action. Zach defaulted (failed to answer); a prove-up hearing was held and the trial court denied default judgment and entered judgment for Zach, finding plaintiff failed to prove his case.
- On appeal, Jason challenged summary judgment for Sarah (arguing triable issues on negligence and duty to summon aid and on willful misconduct) and challenged the denial of default judgment as to Zach.
- The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment as to negligence and willful misconduct against Sarah (triable issues exist), affirmed adjudication of assault/battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress as to Sarah, reversed the judgment for Zach and remanded for a damages prove‑up/default-judgment hearing, and affirmed denial of Sarah’s cost‑of‑proof attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault & Battery — did evidence create triable issue that Sarah pushed or threatened Jason? | Carlsen: circumstantial facts (argument, torn jeans, neighbor’s hearing, delayed reporting, items in car) permit inference Sarah pushed him. | Koivumaki: plaintiff has no memory and she declares she did not touch or threaten him; no evidence of push. | Affirmed for defendant on assault/battery — inferences of push are speculative; plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to raise triable issue. |
| Negligence — did Sarah owe and breach a duty (including duty to summon aid) by bringing intoxicated Jason to the cliff and delaying help? | Carlsen: Sarah participated in taking an intoxicated Jason to a remote cliff (planned trip, present when told she would drive him home, sat drinking with him), knew his vulnerability, and delayed reporting — creates triable issues on duty, breach, causation. | Koivumaki: no duty because she didn’t cause fall, no special relationship, plaintiff went voluntarily, and she attempted to locate him. | Reversed as to negligence — triable issues exist on whether Sarah helped place Jason in peril and breached duty (including duty to summon aid). |
| Willful Misconduct — did Sarah act with knowledge of probable harm and consciously fail to act? | Carlsen: same factual showing supports willful misconduct (knowledge of peril, probable injury, conscious failure to summon aid). | Koivumaki: no duty and no causation; she did not create peril. | Reversed as to willful misconduct — triable issues exist. |
| Default judgment against Zach — did clerk’s default and complaint pleadings entitle Carlsen to default judgment (liability established; only damages remaining)? | Carlsen: default admits well-pleaded allegations; complaint alleges he was knocked/pushed and defendants delayed summoning aid, stating causes for negligence, willful misconduct, IIED. | Trial court: plaintiff failed to prove his case at prove‑up; evidence insufficient. | Reversed: complaint states sufficient causes of action; trial court erred in requiring evidentiary proof of liability at prove‑up; remand for damages hearing and entry of default judgment if damages proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teselle v. McLoughlin, 173 Cal. App. 4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (defendant moving for summary judgment must show plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements; burden-shifting rules)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (standards for reviewing summary judgment evidence and inferences)
- Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc., 201 Cal. App. 4th 267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (effect of defendant’s failure to answer; clerk’s default admits well-pleaded allegations and plaintiff need only prove damages at prove-up)
- Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal. 3d 18 (Cal. 1983) (no general duty to rescue absent creation of peril or special relationship)
- Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 3d 868 (Cal. 1991) (elements and standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 1096 (Cal. 2003) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)