74 Cal.App.5th 201
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Property owner Shirley Cassell rented a unit to Marilyn Mazza; the unit’s only bathroom sat atop a two-step stair/platform that had no handrail.
- Lydia Kaney (appellant) regularly visited Mazza and on Sept. 3, 2014 used that bathroom; the light was out and Kaney later remembered being on the stairs and waking up in pain but did not recall the fall itself.
- Mazza settled her claim; Cassell moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) no duty (open-and-obvious condition), no notice, and no admissible evidence of causation because Kaney could not remember the fall.
- Kaney offered an engineer’s declaration (Avrit) that the stair dimensions and lack of handrail made the stairway dangerous and that a handrail would likely have prevented the fall.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Cassell; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding circumstantial evidence allows a reasonable inference that the stair condition (including lack of handrail) was a substantial factor in the fall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s amnesia about the fall precludes proving causation | Kaney: testimony she was on the stairs and woke up injured plus circumstantial evidence (dangerous stairs, no handrail) permits a reasonable inference of causation | Cassell: Kaney’s inability to recall the fall makes causation speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment | Reversed — amnesia does not bar causation if circumstantial evidence permits a reasonable and probable inference that defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor |
| Whether landowner owed a duty despite an open-and-obvious condition | Kaney: even if condition was obvious, necessity (only bathroom access) and foreseeability of use support imposing duty | Cassell: stairs were open and obvious and Kaney was familiar with them from prior visits, so no duty to warn or remedy | Triable issue remains — exception to open-and-obvious rule (foreseeable necessity) precludes summary disposition |
| Whether owner had notice or time to discover/repair the dangerous condition | Kaney: stairs may have existed in same condition for decades; constructive knowledge is a jury question | Cassell: no actual notice or prior incidents; tenant liked the steps; no basis to charge owner with knowledge | Triable issue on constructive knowledge and whether owner had time/ability to remedy |
| Whether plaintiff needed expert proof of causation or code violation to survive summary judgment | Kaney: causation here is within common experience (handrail and riser size prevent stumbles becoming falls); expert supports dangerous condition but is not indispensable for causation | Cassell: Avrit’s opinions are speculative, lack foundation, and code violations may not apply | Court: expert may be unnecessary to prove causation when matter is within common knowledge; circumstantial evidence sufficient to raise triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Burdette v. Rollefson Construction Co., 52 Cal.2d 720 (Cal. 1959) (absence of railing supported reasonable inference that defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause)
- Schumann v. C. R. Reichel Engineering Co., 187 Cal.App.2d 309 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960) (circumstantial evidence can permit inference that unsafe platform/rail conditions caused unexplained fall)
- Leslie G. v. Perry & Associates, 43 Cal.App.4th 472 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (plaintiff’s amnesia about fall does not preclude recovery where circumstantial evidence supports causation)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001) (causation requires nonspeculative evidence; speculative inferences cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200 (Cal. 2001) (constructive knowledge and the time a dangerous condition existed are jury questions)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (factors for imposing duty of care on landowners)
- McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 98 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (distinguished — plaintiff there lacked any evidence of exposure; contrasted with cases where circumstantial evidence supports causation)