Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes, LLC

Summary

The California Court of Appeal reviews a nonsuit in a case arising from two children falling from a second-floor apartment window. It holds that the plaintiffs’ general negligence claim failed for lack of a sufficiently foreseeable duty, but that the trial court improperly rejected their negligence per se claim based on its interpretation of the California Building Standards Code. The court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for retrial on the negligence per se claim.

Holdings

1. Nonsuit was properly granted on the general-negligence claim because, even assuming plaintiffs' evidence and all disputed factual issues were resolved in their favor, the circumstances did not establish a sufficiently foreseeable risk of harm to support the existence of a duty of care.
2. A replacement window assembly is not an 'original material' within the meaning of California Building Code section 3404.1.1. The exemption for replacement, retention, or extension of original materials therefore did not excuse defendants from complying with section 1013.8's fall-prevention requirements.
3. Nonsuit was improper on the negligence-per-se claim because plaintiffs presented evidence from which a jury could find that defendants violated the Building Code by failing to install a fall-prevention device, that the violation proximately caused the injuries, that the injuries were of the type the regulation was intended to prevent, and that the children belonged to the protected class.
4. A nonsuit may not be granted when the plaintiff's evidence would support a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor; it is proper only when the evidence raises no more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly granted nonsuit on plaintiffs' general-negligence theories because defendants owed no duty of care under the circumstances.
2. Whether the replacement of the apartment window was exempt under California Building Code section 3404.1.1 as a replacement of original building materials, thereby eliminating any violation of section 1013.8.
3. Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on their negligence-per-se claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded