(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)
DEFENDANT UNIVERSAL HOMES’ INSTANT MOTION
Defendant UNIVERSAL HOMES moves for summary judgment on the grounds the negligence that caused Ms. Smith to be hospitalized was not a legal cause her death due to negligence in that hospital.
In response, plaintiff contends that moving defendant’s negligence was a legal cause of the death of Ms. Smith because her brain injury and subsequent death was caused by the negligence of health care providers she went to see as a result of the defendants negligence. At a minimum, there is a triable issue of fact.
THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court’s role here is whether or not there is, or could be, a triable issue on any material fact. Code Civ. Proc. Section 437. A defendant who seeks summary judgment must define all theories alleged in the complaint and then challenge each factually, showing that one or more elements of each of plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. CCP section 437c (p)(2); Lopez v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705, 714.
Summary Judgment is a drastic procedure and should be used with caution. Any doubt as to the propriety of granting the motion is resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Stationer’s Corp v. Dun & Bradstreet Inc. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 412,
The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are not triable issues of fact. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th. 826, 850. If the moving party fails to carry its burden of production, the burden never shifts to the responding party to make any showing, and the motion must be denied. (Code Civ. Proc. Section 437(c) subd. (p)(1) & (2); R. Weil & I. Brown, California Practice Guide-Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter, 2005 Rev. (10:261) Material facts not set forth in a separate statement do not exist and mentioning them in points and authorities is insufficient. Put another way, facts not referenced in separate statement may not be considered by the court. Mills v. Forester Co. 2003 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641 and Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App. 3d 327, 337. The issue of causation is one of fact to be decided by a jury.
Turning specifically to causation, it is a question of fact to be determined by a jury. In California, a negligent act is the legal cause of an injury where the act was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. A substantial factor is one that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The factor must be more than a remote or trivial factor, but it need be only one of perhaps many causes of the injury. Se CACI Instruction No. 430. Legal causation is a matter upon which lay opinion is quite as competent as that of the most experienced court. Lysick v. Walcom ((1968) 258 Cal. App.2d 136, 153.
In our case, the death occurred as a result of the negligence of the health care providers with whom Ms. Smith sought care for her injuries. It has long been the rule that a tortfeasor responsible for the original accident is also liable for injuries or death occurring during the course of medical treatment to treat injuries suffered in that accident. Indeed, moving defendant is responsible for the death as a matter of law, not the other way around. In Ash v. Mortensen (1944) 24 Cal. 2d 654 [150 P.2d 876], the Supreme Court stated: It is settled that where one who has suffered personal injuries by reason of the tortious act of another exercises due care in securing the services of a doctor and his injuries are aggravated by the negligence of such doctor, the law regards the act of the original wrongdoer as a proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent negligent medical treatment and holds him liable therefore. Id,. at p. 657. (See Part 4 of 6.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.