24 Cal. App. 5th 627
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff Michele Coyle ate lunch on the Mission Inn patio on May 8, 2013 and alleges she was bitten by a spider there, later suffering paralysis and lasting injury attributed to a black widow bite.
- Coyle sued for negligence and premises liability, alleging the Inn knew or should have known spiders (including black widows) were present and failed to warn patrons or take remedial pest-control measures.
- The Mission Inn moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not owe a duty to protect against spider bites, had pest-control protocols that exceeded industry standards, and lacked knowledge of spiders on the patio.
- The Inn submitted declarations and pest-control records showing routine pest treatments and only a small number of spider/black widow sightings; Coyle relied on a log showing prior spider sightings and her own account of being bitten and hospitalized.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding no duty as a matter of law; the appellate court reversed, holding duty exists and factual disputes on reasonable care, breach, causation, and damages preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of duty | Restaurants owe duty of reasonable care to patrons; Inn knew or should have known of spiders, so duty applies | No duty to protect patrons from spider bites; imposing such a duty would be unreasonable/insurer-like | Duty exists generally; courts should not categorically exempt restaurants from reasonable-care obligations regarding black widow spiders |
| Standard of care (what reasonable care requires) | Reasonable care required warning patrons or taking remedial pest-control specific to black widows | Reasonable care did not require additional measures beyond existing pest protocols; dispute is breach, not duty | What reasonable care requires is fact-specific and for the jury; court should not decide on summary judgment absent undisputed evidence |
| Breach | Inn did nothing specific for black widows (no targeted spraying or warnings), supporting breach | Inn had pest-control procedures and expert declaration that its program exceeded industry standards | Disputed factual issue remains about whether Inn's actions satisfied reasonable care; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Causation and damages | Coyle suffered immediate symptoms and hospital diagnosis tying paralysis to a spider bite at Inn | Inn's evidence does not conclusively negate causation | Evidence on causation and damages is sufficient to create triable issues for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016) (duty is a question of law informed by foreseeability and policy factors)
- Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 2011) (duty analysis uses generalized foreseeability; jury decides what reasonable prudence requires under facts)
- Brunelle v. Signore, 215 Cal.App.3d 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (homeowner no duty for brown recluse bites where species not indigenous and no prior sightings; discussed and limited)
- Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 539 (Cal. 1993) (standard of care is generally the reasonably prudent person under like circumstances)
- Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200 (Cal. 2001) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)