Johnson v. Prasad
224 Cal. App. 4th 74
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Homeowners (Prasad) purchased a single-family home in 2000 that included an in‑ground pool built in 1976–77; they did not alter the pool. A six‑foot perimeter fence surrounded the property; the only direct house→pool access was a kitchen sliding glass door with a security gate that lacked a self‑closing/self‑latching mechanism. Century 21 managed the property since 2009.
- In June 2009 tenants held a gathering; four‑year‑old Allen Soucy attended with family. After people left the pool, Allen entered the house, later went back outside via the only door to the pool, was found submerged, remained on life support 19 days, then died.
- Plaintiff (Allen’s mother) sued for wrongful death alleging: (1) family members negligently supervised Allen; (2) homeowners negligently failed to fence the pool or otherwise protect children from accidental drowning; and (3) Century 21 negligently failed to ensure the premises met safety code before renting.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) no legal duty, no dangerous condition, no notice, and lack of causation; trial court granted summary judgment for homeowners and Century 21.
- The Court of Appeal reversed as to the homeowners — finding as a matter of law homeowners owed a duty of care to protect a young child from drowning and that triable issues exist as to breach (e.g., lack of pool perimeter fence or self‑closing door) and causation — and affirmed as to Century 21 because the sole theory against it depended on compliance with a safety statute that did not apply to the preexisting pool.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether homeowners owed a duty to protect a 4‑year‑old from drowning in a rented house pool | Homeowners rented a house with a maintained pool and thus owed ordinary care to prevent foreseeable child drownings | No duty: homeowners had no obligation to inspect or take extra precautions beyond existing conditions | Duty exists as a matter of law; Rowland factors support imposing duty on homeowners |
| Whether homeowners breached duty and whether breach was a substantial factor in causing death | Failure to install pool perimeter fence or self‑closing/self‑latching door could foreseeably allow a child access and thus breached duty and could be a substantial factor | Parents/grandmother’s failure to supervise was sole cause; even if features lacked, causation not shown as matter of law | Triable issues of fact exist on breach and causation; summary judgment improper as to homeowners |
| Whether Century 21 is liable for failing to ensure compliance with pool safety code before renting | Century 21 failed to ensure premises met safety code (e.g., required drowning‑prevention features) | Century 21 exempt because the Safety Act applies only to newly constructed/remodeled pools; no violation | Judgment affirmed as to Century 21; no triable issue because the applicable statute did not apply to the preexisting pool |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on negligence claims | Summary judgment improperly granted because duty, breach, causation remain contested | Summary judgment proper because defendants negated duty/causation and no statutory violation | Reversed as to homeowners (deny MSJ); affirmed as to Century 21 (MSJ proper on pleaded theory) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (framework for duty analysis under Civil Code §1714 and Rowland factors)
- Castaneda v. Olsher, 41 Cal.4th 1205 (Cal. 2007) (foreseeability and burden inform duty scope)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (standard of review on summary judgment; de novo review)
- Melton v. Boustred, 183 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Padilla v. Rodas, 160 Cal.App.4th 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (causation analysis where multiple potential access points to pool exist)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001) (substantial factor causation standard)
- McGarry v. Sax, 158 Cal.App.4th 983 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (breach and causation ordinarily questions for jury)
- Barrett v. Southern Pacific Co., 91 Cal. 296 (Cal. 1891) (children’s incapacity for self‑protection increases duty of care)