Moore v. William Jessup University
243 Cal. App. 4th 427
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Moore, a 20-year UPS delivery veteran, was injured lifting the fifth of 24 similarly sized boxes at William Jessup University; labels on all boxes read 48 lbs., but Moore estimated the injured box weighed 70–80 lbs.
- Moore routinely encountered mislabeled packages and was trained by UPS to test package weight before lifting, to use a hand truck, and to seek assistance for packages ≥70 lbs.; UPS does not require customers to weigh packages.
- Moore received workers’ compensation benefits and sued the University for negligence, alleging the University understated the box weight and failed to mark the box to increase the risk of injury.
- The University moved for summary judgment arguing the risk was inherent in Moore’s occupation and it did not increase that risk; trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for the University.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the primary assumption of risk doctrine applied because the risk of lifting heavy or mislabeled packages was inherent in Moore’s job and the University did not increase that risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary assumption of risk bars Moore's negligence claim | Moore: University increased risk by understating weight and failing to mark the box; thus doctrine should not bar recovery | University: Risk of lifting heavy/mislabeled packages is inherent in Moore’s employment; it did not increase risk | Held: Primary assumption of risk applies; claim barred because risk was inherent and not increased by University |
| Whether University owed an independent duty of care under Rowland factors | Moore: University had duty to prevent foreseeable harm by accurately labeling or marking heavy packages | University: No duty; UPS drivers are trained and in better position to guard against lifting injuries; customers don’t supervise driver methods | Held: Court did not reach Rowland analysis because primary assumption of risk resolved the case; no duty as matter of law |
| Whether mislabeling constitutes independent misconduct sufficient to avoid firefighter/veterinarian-type rule | Moore: Mislabeling is affirmative misconduct that increased risk beyond occupational hazards | University: No evidence it increased the risk; mislabeling by customers is a known, inherent hazard for UPS drivers | Held: Mislabeling here was not the sort of independent, unforeseeable misconduct (unlike Lipson) that defeats the doctrine |
| Whether triable factual issue existed to defeat summary judgment | Moore: Disputed factual issues (weight, marking, preparation of boxes) preclude summary judgment | University: Evidence shows inherent risk and no duty; plaintiff controlled lifting decisions and had training | Held: No triable issue material to duty; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (establishes general duty factors to consider)
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (defines primary vs. secondary assumption of risk)
- Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal.4th 1112 (applies veterinarian’s rule and primary assumption of risk to kennel workers)
- Gregory v. Cott, 59 Cal.4th 996 (explains when primary assumption of risk excuses duty)
- Lipson v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.3d 362 (misrepresentation after arrival can create independent duty and avoid firefighter rule)
- Nelson v. Hall, 165 Cal.App.3d 709 (veterinarian’s rule: owner not liable for bites during treatment)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment standard)