Lichtman v. Siemens Indus. Inc.
224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- City of Glendale contracted with Siemens Industry Inc. (dba Republic ITS) to maintain traffic-signal battery backup units that keep signals operable during power outages.
- In 2011 Siemens reinstalled a backup unit at the Glendale Ave/Broadway intersection but did not insert batteries; the unit remained inoperable for 11 months.
- During a September 4, 2011 nighttime power outage the traffic signal at that intersection was dark; plaintiffs were injured in a collision when their car entered the intersection.
- Plaintiffs sued Siemens for negligence (breach of its contractual maintenance obligations); other defendants were dismissed or settled.
- Siemens moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no legal duty to plaintiffs; the trial court granted summary judgment on duty grounds but found proximate cause contested.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding Siemens failed to show as a matter of law that no duty existed and remanded with directions to deny summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiffs for negligent maintenance of battery backups | Contracted maintenance was intended to protect intersection users; failure to install batteries foreseeably increased risk of harm | No duty as a matter of law; reliance on public-entity immunity cases and decisions like White and Paz | Duty question is factual; defendant failed to prove absence of duty as a matter of law and summary judgment was improper |
| Applicability of negligent-undertaking (Rest.2d §324A) | Defendant undertook to render services, the services were to protect third parties, and its failure increased risk or was relied upon | Defendant argued the §324A predicates do not apply (no increased risk, no reliance, no undertaking of others' duty) | Evidence created reasonable inferences that defendant increased risk and the City relied on the backup system; §324A bars summary judgment |
| Whether Government Code §830.4 or public-entity immunity shields defendant | N/A (plaintiffs) | Siemens argued statutory immunity principles and analogous public-entity cases negate duty | Statutory immunity for public entities does not extend to private contractors; immunity analyses do not negate duty question before liability is established |
| Whether precedent (Paz, White, Chowdhury) required no duty here | Plaintiffs distinguished those cases based on facts and party status | Defendant relied on those cases to show no duty or immunity | Court distinguished them; Paz and White are factually different and involved public-entity contexts or different undertakings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ladd v. County of San Mateo, 12 Cal.4th 913 (use of duty/breach/proximate cause framework)
- Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 51 Cal.4th 764 (de novo review of summary judgment duty rulings)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (public policy factors for duty)
- Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 (duty from contractual undertakings to third parties)
- Artiglio v. Corning, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 604 (negligent-undertaking / §324A discussion)
- Paz v. State of California, 22 Cal.4th 550 (limits on private-contractor liability for public improvements)
- White v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 25 Cal.App.4th 442 (streetlight case distinguishing public-utility duty)
- Mukthar v. Latin American Security Service, 139 Cal.App.4th 284 (application of negligent-undertaking where contractor increased risk)
- Dekens v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 107 Cal.App.4th 1177 (scope of undertaking limits liability)
- Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197 (statutory immunity not addressed until duty exists)