Silva v. Warren Resources of Cal. CA2/2
B302669
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- On April 8, 2018, Silva (an employee of Warren E&P) was injured while Warren E&P was flushing an abandoned pipeline at a Wilmington property; Silva received workers’ compensation benefits.
- Warren E&P and Warren Resources of California, Inc. (Warren California) are separate WRI subsidiaries; Warren E&P operates, maintains, and manages the property; Warren California does not control, operate, or manage the property and had no involvement in the work.
- Silva sued Warren California for negligence and premises liability.
- Warren California moved for summary judgment supported by declarations and documentary evidence; Silva opposed, asserting nondelegable duty and liability under a single-business-enterprise/alter-ego theory and submitted a declaration from his counsel.
- The trial court sustained Warren California’s evidentiary objections (excluding counsel’s declaration), granted summary judgment for Warren California, and entered judgment; Silva appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warren California owed a premises-liability duty based on control of the property | Warren California had a nondelegable duty and controlled the premises; thus liable | Warren California did not own, possess, control, manage, or operate the property and had no involvement | No duty—undisputed lack of control; summary judgment for Warren California |
| Whether corporate unity / single-business-enterprise (alter ego) creates liability | Entities functioned as an integrated enterprise; Warren California therefore jointly liable | Entities are separate corporate entities; Warren E&P was the operator and employer; no evidence of integration | Silva failed to raise a triable issue; Gigax distinguished; no admissible evidence of integration |
| Admissibility of Silva’s opposing evidence (counsel’s declaration) | Counsel’s declaration supplies facts about integration and pipeline safety | Declaration lacks personal knowledge and contains legal conclusions/speculation; inadmissible | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding the declaration; only admissible evidence may create triable issues |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment given burdens | Silva: factual disputes exist that preclude summary judgment | Warren California: showed absence of at least one element (duty/control), shifting burden to Silva to show a triable issue | De novo review of summary judgment; defendant met its burden and Silva failed to show a triable fact; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (establishes burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
- Gray v. America West Airlines, Inc., 209 Cal.App.3d 76 (absence of ownership/possession/control defeats premises-liability claims)
- Williams v. Fairhaven Cemetery Assn., 52 Cal.2d 135 (owner who did not control or operate premises not liable for employee injuries)
- Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (premises liability grounded in possession and right to control)
- Guthrey v. State of California, 63 Cal.App.4th 1108 (opposing declarations must be based on personal knowledge and not legal conclusions)
- Gigax v. Ralston Purina Co., 136 Cal.App.3d 591 (corporate control/identity issues can preclude summary judgment when factual evidence of integration exists)