Summerfield v. City of Inglewood

96 Cal.App.5th 983

314 Cal.Rptr.3d 822

Dwight SUMMERFIELD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.CITY OF INGLEWOOD, Defendant and Respondent.

B324117

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, California.

Filed October 25, 2023

Law Office of Christie E. Webb, Christie E. Webb, Los Angeles; Law Office of Judith K. Williams and Judith K. Williams, Studio City, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Olivarez Madruga Law Organization, Thomas M. Madruga, Los Angeles, and Tania Ochoa for Defendant and Respondent.

STRATTON, P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Dwight and Patricia Summerfield and the estate of Andrew Summerfield (appellants) filed a wrongful death action for the death of the Summerfields’ son Andrew against the City of Inglewood (the City). Appellants alleged the City was negligent and created a "dangerous condition" in a public park by failing to install security cameras in an area with ongoing criminal activity, which caused an unknown third party to fatally shoot their son.

The trial court sustained the City's demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend. Appellants filed a first amended complaint, which the trial court sustained, this time without leave to amend. The trial court then entered a judgment of dismissal.

We conclude appellants’ dangerous condition and negligence claims fail and the trial court did not err in declining to grant leave to amend. We therefore affirm the judgment of dismissal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint

On August 18, 2021, appellants filed a complaint against the City, alleging two causes of action for 1) dangerous condition on public property and 2) negligence.

The complaint alleged the following:

On January 5, 2021, Andrew (decedent) drove to Darby Park in the City of Inglewood to play basketball. Decedent was shot and killed while he was in his vehicle in the Darby Park parking lot.

Darby Park and its facilities are "owned, maintained, supervised, [and/or] controlled" by the City. Darby Park "was supposed to be closed to the public due to Covid-19." Appellants are informed and believe "a Parks and Recreation employee [of the City] opened the Darby Park gym to the public in violation of the [C]ity's Covid-19 protocol, which was a substantial factor in drawing people to Darby Park" including decedent and the perpetrator. Appellants "are informed and believe ... there have been multiple shooting[s] at Darby Park prior to January 5, 2021."

On the day of the shooting on January 5, 2021, "there were no cameras in the Darby Park parking lot, and a lack of adequate precautions ... including but not limited to, attendants, control measures, and/or security." Darby Park and its adjacent parking lot constitute a "dangerous condition" that the City failed to remedy or prevent, "despite actual or constructive knowledge of the condition." The City was "negligent in connection with their ownership, control, maintenance, and/or use of the premises." The City breached its duty of care to decedent and appellants by failing to provide security cameras in the area, failing to provide adequate precautions, and failing to provide adequate warning about the dangerous condition.

As a direct and proximate cause of the City's negligence and unsafe condition of the premises, the decedent was shot and appellants suffered significant injuries, including special/economic damages (such as decedent's hospital and medical expenses), general/non-economic damages, as well as the related loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, affection, and guidance of decedent.

B. Demurrer to the Complaint and Trial Court's Ruling

On November 16, 2021, the City filed a demurrer to the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f).

At the hearing on May 2, 2022, the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. The court ruled:

Whether the City failed to provide "adequate precautions," such as "control measures and/or security," could not form a basis for liability because the City "is immune from liability arising from its failure to provide security or supervision at Darby Park" parking lot. Public entities generally are not liable for failing to protect against third party crime. As for the City's alleged failure to provide other "precautions" constituting a dangerous condition, the court found the allegation vague. With respect to appellants’ second allegation that the City failed to provide "adequate warning" about the dangerous condition, the court found the City's alleged failure to warn of criminal activity in the Darby Park parking lot could not form a basis for liability. With respect to appellants’ third allegation, the court found the absence of security cameras might provide a basis for liability against the City under Government Code section 835. However, the court found the complaint failed to allege "why the lack of cameras in this instance created a substantial risk of [d]ecedent's shooting such that it constituted a dangerous condition" per Government Code section 830, subdivision (a).

C. The Allegations of the First Amended Complaint

On May 17, 2022, appellants filed a first amended complaint (FAC). For the most part, the FAC listed the same two causes of action and alleged the same facts set out in the original complaint. The FAC added these facts and clarifications:

A "City of Inglewood Parks and Recreation employee opened the Darby Park gym to the public in violation of the [C]ity's Covid-19 protocol, which was a substantial factor in drawing people to Darby Park" including decedent and the perpetrator. Appellants are informed and believe "there were no policies, procedures and/or guidelines in place in order for the City of Inglewood Parks and Recreation employees to comply with COVID-19 protocol." The City "failed to ensure controlling and/or security measures for the Darby Park gym to be closed to the public, including ... measures that would have precluded Parks and Recreation employees from opening the Darby Park gym to the public, such as limiting employees’ access to means or facilities necessary to open the D[a]rby Park gym and/or specific instructions to refrain from opening the Darby Park gym." Appellants cited Government Code sections 815.2, subdivision (a) and 815.4 in support of the FAC.

There have been "multiple shootings" at Darby Park before January 5, 2021. "A 7-year-old boy was shot and killed on December 8, 1997 in Darby Park ... which [appellants] are informed and believe was a result of gang retaliation. [¶] ... A 22-year-old man was fatally shot in his car in the parking lot of D[a]rby Park ... on October 15, 2012." Appellants believe that "considering multiple shootings at Darby Park prior to January 5, 2021, lack of cameras present attractive opportunities to the criminal element of society, which renders the Darby Park parking lot attractive to criminal activities and inherently dangerous."

At the time of the shooting, there were no cameras in the Darby Park parking lot and a lack of adequate precautions such as "control measures and/or security." This constituted a "dangerous condition" that the City "failed to remedy or prevent, despite actual or constructive knowledge of the condition." The City was also "negligent in connection with [its] ownership, control, maintenance, and/or use of the premises." As a "direct, proximate, and legal result" of the dangerous condition and the City's negligence, decedent was shot, causing appellants to suffer significant injuries.

The City is liable for violating Government Code section 835 and is liable for decedent's death caused by a breach of its mandatory duty per Government Code section 815.6. The City breached its duty of care by maintaining a dangerous condition, including "[f]ailing to provide any adequate precautions" such as control measures and security, "[f]ailing to provide cameras in the Darby Park parking lot", and "[f]ailing to provide any adequate warning about the dangerous condition."

D. Demurrer to the FAC and the Trial Court's Ruling

On June 20, 2022, the City filed a demurrer to the FAC pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f). The City presented several arguments as to why the complaint failed to state causes of action for dangerous condition of public property and for negligence.

On August 2, 2022, the trial court heard oral argument and sustained the demurrer as to both causes of action without leave to amend.

The court ruled the FAC did "not sufficiently allege[ ] facts to cure the prior defect" and did not "set forth allegations that show that the lack of surveillance cameras created a substantial risk of [d]ecedent's shooting." The court found the "new allegations do not demonstrate that the absence of surveillance cameras within Darby Park created a substantial risk of injury to [d]ecedent, thereby rendering Darby Park a dangerous condition." The court further found that because appellants’ negligence cause of action is predicated upon their dangerous condition of public property cause of action, the negligence cause of action "must similarly fail."

On August 16, 2022, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the City and against appellants.

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Appellants argue the trial court erred in sustaining the City's demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend as to both the negligence and dangerous condition on public property causes of action. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

"In reviewing a judgment of dismissal after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded facts. We examine the complaint's factual allegations to determine whether they state a cause of action on any available legal theory regardless of the label attached to a cause of action. [Citation.] We do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law, and may disregard allegations that are contrary to the law or to a fact that may be judicially noticed." ( Fischer v. Time Warner...