Salazar v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 5/10/06 Salazar v. Sup. Ct. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| JAIME AND NANCY SALAZAR, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; UNITED RENTALS, INC., Real Parties in Interest. | B184303 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 281761) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Ricardo A. Torres and Terry A. Green, Judges. Petition is granted in part, and denied in part.
Nick A. Alden for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Sutton & Murphy and Thomas M. Murphy for Real Parties in Interest.
_________________________
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Jaime Salazar was injured using a pressure washer while at work. A year later, petitioner filed a lawsuit against a number of defendants including real party in interest United Rentals, Inc. (United), the company that had rented the pressure washer to petitioner's employer.[1] After the trial court made a number of rulings, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking a number of orders.
We have reviewed the entire record, including the transcripts and numerous pleadings filed in this court. Based upon this review and the concessions of United, we grant the petition in part and deny it in other respects.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Predicate facts.
Petitioner was employed by Envent Corporation. In October 2001, ConocoPhillips hired Envent to clean oil tanks. To clean the tanks, Envent rented from United a pressure washer which injected hot water. A gun, or trigger, was attached to the washer. The pressure washer was manufactured by Hydro Tek Systems. At the time it was purchased, the attached gun was made by Suttner America Company (Suttner). At the time the apparatus was rented to Envent, United believed the attached gun was the Suttner gun.
On October 31, 2001, Envent instructed petitioner to clean the tanks. While cleaning a tank, petitioner was injured with boiling water. The cleaning apparatus was returned to United, who then tested it and rented it out to a number of other customers.
On September 19, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint alleging products liability and other causes of action against a number of defendants, including United. United is the only defendant remaining in the case.
United did not know there had been any incident involving its equipment that had caused petitioner to be injured until it was served with petitioner's complaint on October 28, 2002. In January 2003, in response to a letter written by petitioner's counsel, United advised petitioner that the â€
