74 Cal.App.5th 201
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Lydia Kaney fell at night in a residential bathroom stairway leading up to a toilet at property owned by Shirley Cassell; the stairway lacked a handrail. Kaney remembers using the stairs and then waking up on the floor in pain but does not recall the fall itself.
- Kaney sued for negligence/premises liability; the tenant (Mazza) settled. Cassell moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that the stairs were an open-and-obvious danger and that Kaney’s amnesia about the fall precluded non‑speculative proof of causation.
- Plaintiff offered an engineer’s declaration (Avrit) opining the stairs violated building standards (oversized risers, variable riser heights, inadequate width, no handrail) and that lack of a handrail was a likely cause of the fall.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Kaney’s inability to remember the fall left only speculative inferences on causation. Kaney’s motion for new trial (with supplemental declarations) was denied.
- Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment: circumstantial evidence (being on the stairs, waking up injured, dangerous stair condition and lack of handrail) can support a reasonable and probable inference that the stair condition was a substantial factor in the fall.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether duty exists or is negated by an open-and-obvious condition | Stairs were necessarily encountered to reach the only bathroom; foreseeability and necessity mean open-and-obvious status does not eliminate duty | Stairs were open and obvious and plaintiff had used them repeatedly without prior mishap; thus no duty to remedy or warn | Duty/foreseeability are triable issues; open-and-obvious does not automatically defeat duty where necessity makes encountering the condition foreseeable |
| Notice / constructive knowledge | Stair defects (including no handrail) existed for decades; constructive knowledge and opportunity to discover are triable | No prior incidents or complaints; tenant liked the steps; no notice to owner | Whether owner had notice or sufficient time to discover the hazard is a triable factual issue |
| Causation when plaintiff cannot remember the fall | Circumstantial evidence (on stairs, woke injured, dangerous stair condition, engineer’s opinions) permits a reasonable inference that stair defects were a substantial factor in the fall | Plaintiff’s amnesia makes causation speculative; other explanations (bath mat, slippers, medical event) equally plausible | Reversed: plaintiff need not remember the fall; circumstantial evidence can create a non‑speculative inference of causation suitable for trial |
| Need for expert proof of causation | Causation here is within common experience (handrail and riser safety), so expert testimony is not necessary to prove causation | Expert needed to link code violations and stair condition to accident; Avrit’s opinions were attacked as speculative | Whether expert proof is required depends on whether causation is beyond common experience; court held causation could be resolved by jurors on common-sense inference (expert not required to establish causation for summary-judgment purposes) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdette v. Rollefson Construction Co., 52 Cal.2d 720 (1959) (circumstantial inference that absence of railing caused fall; absence of barrier established duty and proximate cause)
- Schumann v. C. R. Reichel Engineering Co., 187 Cal.App.2d 309 (1960) (plaintiff’s amnesia does not preclude jury from reasonably inferring that safety defects caused fall)
- Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates, 43 Cal.App.4th 472 (1996) (moving defendant may show an element cannot be established to shift burden on summary judgment)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles: defendant may show plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (2001) (causation must be proved by non‑speculative evidence)
- Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200 (2001) (landowner liability requires actual or constructive knowledge; duration of defect to charge owner is a factual inquiry)
- McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 98 Cal.App.4th 1098 (2002) (distinguishes cases where no evidence of exposure/causal link exists and summary judgment is appropriate)
- Kurinji v. Hanna & Morton, 55 Cal.App.4th 853 (1997) (causation ordinarily a question of fact; summary judgment only when no room for reasonable difference of opinion)