26 Cal. App. 5th 284
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff Amalia Webster attended a Restorative yoga class taught by instructor Kurt Bumiller and alleged he caused multiple injuries when adjusting her during class; she never told him she was in pain during the class.
- Plaintiff sued Claremont Yoga and Bumiller for negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants also had argued a liability-limiting contract below (rejected by the trial court) but that issue is not before the appellate court.
- Defendants supported the motion with expert declarations: an orthopedic surgeon (Dr. Jeffrey Deckey) opined plaintiff’s condition was chronic/degenerative, not traumatic from the class; a psychotherapist/yoga instructor (Jonathan Simons) opined Bumiller’s touch and adjustments were within the industry standard of care.
- Plaintiff produced no expert contrary evidence; she relied on her deposition, medical records, and portions of an owner’s deposition (Nicole Riel) but offered no medical or industry expert to rebut defendants’ experts.
- The trial court overruled plaintiff’s evidentiary objections and granted summary judgment, finding plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue as to breach or causation. Plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants breached the applicable standard of care | Plaintiff said her testimony and owner Riel’s testimony (that Bumiller normally was gentle) created a factual dispute about breach | Defendants argued Simons’ uncontradicted expert declaration established their conduct met the industry standard and negated breach | Court held expert testimony was required to establish breach of the professional standard; plaintiff failed to contradict Simons, so no triable issue of breach |
| Whether defendants caused plaintiff’s injuries | Plaintiff argued medical records and her testimony raised a factual dispute as to causation | Defendants argued Deckey’s expert showed injuries were due to chronic degenerative disease, not the class | Court held causation presented a medically complex issue requiring expert proof; plaintiff’s records merely reported her belief and lacked expert causation, so no triable issue of causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment burden and standard of review)
- Kids' Universe v. In2Labs, 95 Cal.App.4th 870 (defendant meets burden by uncontradicted expert evidence on essential element)
- Unigard Ins. Group v. O'Flaherty & Belgum, 38 Cal.App.4th 1229 (expert testimony ordinarily required to prove professional standard of care)
- Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 163 Cal.App.3d 396 (when lay jurors may decide causation vs. when expert required)
- Garbell v. Conejo Hardwoods, Inc., 193 Cal.App.4th 1563 (expert testimony required where causation is beyond common experience)
- Hanson v. Grode, 76 Cal.App.4th 601 (uncontradicted expert declarations can entitle defendant to summary judgment)