217 Cal. App. 4th 218
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Laabs injured when her car collided at an intersection and hit a light pole owned by SCE located 18 inches from the curb.
- Laabs sued SCE, the City of Victorville, and the County of San Bernardino among others.
- This appeal arises from (a) SCE's motion for judgment on the pleadings invoking Public Utilities Code § 1759 and (b) the City's demurrer to SCE's first amended cross-complaint.
- The trial court granted the § 1759 motion, which the Court reverses, and denied the City's demurrer, which the Court affirms.
- PUC authority and local police power may overlap; the City had control over siting of poles, and the tariff did not bar a damage action here.
- SCE's cross-complaint against the City requires a timely government claim, which was not filed, so the demurrer was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PUC's exclusive jurisdiction bars a private damages action. | Laabs/Laabs III showed PUC controls siting; §1759 precludes damages suit. | SCE argues PUC jurisdiction over siting and tariff liability bars suit. | No; §2106 action not barred; concurrent local regulation permitted. |
| Whether the City and SCE can litigate indemnity without timely government claim. | SCE's cross-complaint is defensive and not subject to claims statute. | Cross-complaint expands beyond defensive scope; government claim required. | SCE's cross-complaint is not purely defensive; government claim required; demurrer sustained. |
| Whether the City had exclusive siting authority over street-light poles. | PUC approvals control siting via tariff, precluding damages. | City has concurrent authority; siting valid under local police power. | City could regulate siting; tariff did not oust local control; liability limitation provision in tariff not applicable. |
| Whether the 1992 LS-1 tariff's liability limitation applies to a third-party personal injury action. | Tariff limits SCE's liability for actions taken under tariff. | Limitation applies to actions taken pursuant to tariff; here not applicable. | Not applicable; pole placement was controlled by City, not SCE; limitation not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1996) (PUC plenary authority and regulatory policy relevance; Waters rule on 1759 vs. 2106)
- Anchor Lighting v. Southern California Edison Co., 142 Cal.App.4th 541 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (PUC jurisdiction not unset by local regulation; concurrent authority)
- In re Competition for Local Exchange Service, 82 Cal.P.U.C.2d 510 (Cal.P.U.C. 1998) (PUC jurisdiction over utility right-of-way access; local siting relevance)
- Krainock v. Superior Court, 216 Cal.App.3d 1473 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (defensive cross-claims and government claims rule; Krainock defense context)
- Laabs v. Southern California Edison Co., 175 Cal.App.4th 1260 (Cal.App. 2009) (precedent on duty and role in luminaire placement; remand context)