A plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the owners of an Oakland, California property after he was allegedly injured by a live bullet that a party guest threw into a bonfire. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding the defendants owed him no legal duty to prevent that incident. The appeals court affirmed the judgment.The plaintiff filed suit in August 2013 against Madison Park Financial Corp. and two individuals. His complaint alleged general negligence and premises liability; specifically, he claimed that on June 29, 2012, the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent their party guests from throwing a live bullet into a bonfire, which exploded and injured him. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground they owed no duty to prevent that incident as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion. The plaintiff subsequently amended the negligence cause of action to name as an additional defendant the individual who allegedly threw the bullet, who was not a party to the appeal.
The appeals court first explained that the appellant’s briefing was unfocused and difficult to follow, and the law dictates that an appellate brief must contain cogent legal argument supported by appropriate authority. Given this constraint, the appeals court only located a single legal issue raised by the plaintiff in his opening brief: that the trial court erred when it concluded that there was no legal duty regarding the disputed facts, since the defendants had a duty to limit or curtail the use of the property, such as dangerous activities. Under that theory, if the defendants had stopped the illegal fireworks-related activities that night, the man who threw the bullet would not have brought his own explosives out to the parking lot.
The appeals court found that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show the trial court erred in concluding the defendants owed him no legal duty. He cited no authority holding on remotely similar facts that a legal duty existed. On the contrary, most of the decisions he cited involved tort claims arising from injuries inflicted by third parties, which held that no legal duty existed.
The court found that at most, the plaintiff argued in effect that this party was wild, with some people even engaging to some degree in reckless behavior. There were illegal fireworks in use, he argued, with flare guns getting shot off and even blanks being thrown into the fire. But the plaintiff failed to articulate how these facts, even if undisputed, created a legal duty to prevent a grown man from tossing a live bullet into a bonfire.
When the connection between a defendant’s alleged negligence and the type of resulting injury is “too indirect and attenuated,” the appeals court explained, no duty exists. The court held that what allegedly occurred here seemed to be so far afield from the kinds of things that undisputedly were going on, the defendants could not reasonably have been on notice to prevent it.
Moreover, the appeals court explained, it was also undisputed according to the trial court that the defendants had no knowledge or reason to know the man even possessed any bullets—a determination with which the plaintiff took no issue on appeal. Under the case law cited by the defendants—which the plaintiff did not address—that alone was a sufficient basis to affirm the trial court’s summary judgment ruling.
For these reasons, the appeals court concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden on appeal to demonstrate an error in the trial court’s summary judgment ruling.
The personal injury lawyers at Neumann Law Group represent victims throughout the Los Angeles area. Call us at (213) 227-0001 for a free consultation.
More Blog Posts:
Ski Season Means More Lawsuits, Neumann Law Group, March 6, 2017.
California Celebrity Dentist Suspended From Practice for Putting Patients in Danger, Neumann Law Group, February 20, 2017.
California Appeals Court Holds Negligence Action Against Therapist is Barred by Litigation Privilege, Neumann Law Group, January 4, 2017.