Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
LEGAL ARGUMENT
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER WHERE THERE IS NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c (c) states that a Motion for Summary Judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The court’s power is not discretionary, but rather mandatory. The purpose for mandatory award of summary judgment is:
to help clear the court’s of an overload of repetitious suits when it appears that no factual issue exists… or that one side or the other is wholly without right. Kaiser Foundation Hospital v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App. 2d 327, citing Dryer v. Dryer (1964) 231Cal.App.2d 441, 449.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
A motion for summary judgment is properly granted where there is no triable issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code of Civ. Proc. §437c, subd. (c). A defendant meets his burden on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication if that party proves that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense. Code of Civ. Proc. §437c, subds. (f)(1) and (o)(l),(2).
A cause of action has no merit if one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be established. Code of Civil Procedure §437c(o)(2). Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more facts exists as to that cause of action. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 942, 966. The plaintiff may not rely solely on the allegations or denials of its pleadings to prove that a triable issue of material fact exists. Ibid. Instead, the plaintiff shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action. Ibid.
If the moving party is entitled to summary judgment based upon its proof, the opposing party can only raise a triable issue of fact by introducing competent affidavits showing a substantial material issue to be tried. Luders v. Pummer (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 276, 279; Cone v. Union Oil Co., 129 Cal.App.2d, 558, 562. Failure of the opposing party to make such proof places the proceeding in the same posture as if no counter-affidavits had been filed in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, if the facts stated in the moving papers entitle the party to summary judgment, summary judgment is proper. Michelman v. Frye (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 698, 702; Sanpietro v. Collins (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 203,204; Stationers Corp. v. Dunn & Bradstreet, Inc. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 412, 417.
The important purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to protect the rights of the parties from spurious or meritless claims, and to expedite litigation by avoiding needless trials. McCreery v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 77, 81. If it appears from an examination of the evidence filed in connection with the Motion for Summary Judgment that no triable issue of material fact exists, summary judgment is proper. Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 562. (See Part 6 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.