Cruz v. Montano

Filed 7/18/06 Cruz v. Montano CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Alan S. Rosenfield, Judge. Reversed.

Michelizzi, Schwabacher, Ward & Collins, David Collins; and Charlotte E. Costan for Plaintiff and Appellant.

McNamara Spira & Smith, J. Patrick Jacobs and Mary O. O'Neill for Defendants and Respondents.

_______________________________________

This appeal arises out of a personal injury lawsuit in which the plaintiff and appellant, Socorro Cruz, claims she was struck by a waste disposal truck, causing serious injuries. The defendants and respondents are Miguel Angel Ramos Montano, the driver of the truck, and his employer, Waste Management of California, Inc. Appellant appeals from a judgment for respondents following their successful motion for summary judgment. Their motion was supported by a declaration from the driver, who essentially denied that the collision occurred. The motion was granted in light of that denial, the fact that the appellant had no recollection of the circumstances of the accident, and the absence of another witness to the accident. In light of these circumstances, the trial court concluded that the essential element of causation could not be established. We reverse because appellant was able to, and did, present circumstantial evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact as to causation.

DISCUSSION

I

The general rules governing summary judgment in California are, by now, well established and do not require extensive exposition here. This remedy is established by Code of Civil Procedure section 437c,[1] as construed by several leading Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions.

Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573 is the first major decision announced after 1992 and 1993 legislative revisions to the summary judgment statute. These changes followed the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Celotex Corporation v. Catrett (1986) 477 U.S. 317, which construed the analogous federal summary judgment provision. (Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., rule 56.) It dealt with the entitlement of a defendant to summary judgment upon establishing, through discovery, that the plaintiff has no factual basis for an essential element of its claim. The court held that a defendant â€