Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp.
203 Cal. App. 4th 403
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Howard slipped in a Kohler tub installed by Omni at the San Diego Omni in Feb 2006, injuring himself.
- Howard alleged Kohler’s coating design was defective and Omni failed to protect him from a dangerous condition.
- Both Kohler and Omni moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted Omni a new trial and Kohler summary judgment.
- Kohler’s defense relied on industry standards (ASME/ASTM) and testing showing sufficient friction; Howard offered expert opinions opposing this.
- Omni argued lack of notice of any dangerous condition; New Haven incident reports were contested as not substantially similar.
- The appellate court affirmed Kohler’s summary judgment, reversed the Omni new-trial order, and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Omni.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kohler: whether summary judgment proper | Howard contends triable issues exist under consumer expectations/design defect. | Kohler relies on industry standards showing adequate safety; Howard failed to raise triable issues. | Kohler summary judgment affirmed. |
| Scope of applicable standards in product liability | Howard argues applicable standards go beyond industry norms. | Kohler cannot defeat with industry standards alone but evidence may show higher standards apply. | Court allows industry standards to inform, not wholly defeat, theories; no triable issue against Kohler. |
| Omni: notice of dangerous condition | Howard asserts Omni had actual/constructive notice from New Haven incidents. | Omni lacked substantially similar notice; prior reports insufficient for duty breach. | New-trial order reversed; Omni summary judgment entered. |
| Notice standard under premises liability | Howard contends Omni’s knowledge of other slips imposes duty to act. | Evidence not sufficiently similar; not enough to show breach of duty. | Not enough to raise triable issue; Omni entitled to summary judgment. |
| Admissibility/role of expert testimony on safety standards | Howard’s experts show higher safety standards beyond industry norms. | Compliance with industry standards is relevant but not dispositive; standard requires expert input. | Summary judgment appropriate; expert opinions lacking reasonable basis to defeat. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (Cal. 1978) (design defect and consumer expectations framework)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) (risk-benefit analysis in design defects; expert testimony allowed)
- Spann v. Irwin Memorial Blood Centers, 34 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. App. 1995) (professional negligence evidence must reflect industry practice)
- Peterson v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 1995) (notice and duty in premises liability context)
- Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200 (Cal. 2001) (premises liability; duty to exercise reasonable care)
- Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 111 Cal.App.4th 472 (Cal. App. 2003) (notice and duty elements in premises liability context)
- Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., 141 Cal.App.4th 525 (Cal. App. 2006) (manufacturer cannot rely solely on industry standards to defeat strict liability claim)
- Spann v. Irwin Memorial Blood Centers, 34 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. App. 1995) (reiterated on professional negligence; relevance to expert evidence)