Lackner v. North - 135 Cal. App. 4th 1188, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 863 (2006)

Rule:

An appellate court independently reviews an order granting summary judgment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. In performing its independent review of the evidence, the appellate court applies the same three-step analysis as the trial court. First, the appellate court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. Next, it determines whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor. Finally, if the moving party has carried its initial burden, the appellate court decides whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material fact issue. In determining whether there is a triable issue of material fact, the appellate court considers all the evidence set forth by the parties except that to which objections have been made and properly sustained. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c). It accepts as true the facts supported by the plaintiff's evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom, resolving evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in the plaintiff's favor.

Facts:

Plaintiff Teri Lackner sued Cassidy Bodine – a high school student, the student's coach, a unified school district, a high school district, and a ski resort operator for personal injuries plaintiff sustained at a ski resort. The student was a member of his high school's ski and snowboard team. Plaintiff, who was an expert skier, was standing in a largely deserted area at the base of an advance run used by skiers and snowboarders to stop and rest. As plaintiff was conversing with her husband, the student, who had just sped down the run on his snowboard during a warmup, headed directly towards plaintiff at a high rate of speed and crashed into her, causing her severe injuries. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that primary assumption of the risk barred their liability to plaintiff and that punitive damages were not recoverable against the student. The trial court also found that the coach and the two school districts were immune from liability under Gov. Code, § 831.7, and did not owe plaintiff a duty of care because the student had no known propensity to ski recklessly or out of control and was an adult. Plaintiff challenged the decision, contending that the trial court erred by granting the defendants’ motion for joinder, summary judgment, and summary adjudication because triable issues of fact remain as to whether his conduct was reckless and whether he acted with malice warranting punitive damages.

Issue:

1. Did triable issues of fact remain as to whether the student’s conduct was reckless, thereby making the grant of summary judgment in favor of the student an error?
2. Under the circumstances, was the plaintiff entitled to punitive damages?

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of the student on plaintiff's cause of action for negligence, dismissed the appeal from the judgment in favor of the high school district, and affirmed the judgments in all other respects. The court concluded that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the student's conduct was reckless. The student rode his snowboard into a rest area at a high rate of speed without looking where he was heading and despite the fact he was unfamiliar with the terrain and the ski area in general. Visibility was excellent and the area was wide open. Had the student been paying attention to his surroundings and the few people standing in the area, he had the skill, and would have had the time and the space, to avoid hitting plaintiff. However, the court also concluded that the resort operator had no duty to supervise the student as a race participant or to warn its patrons that race participants had free access to all the runs. Further, the court concluded that neither the unified school district nor the coach had a duty to personally supervise the student's warm-up run. Finally, plaintiff's claim for punitive damages failed as a matter of law because the evidence was insufficient to show that the student's conduct was despicable and that he acted with an evil intent.