Duran v. San Gabriel/Pomona Reg. Center

Filed 2/22/07  Duran v. San Gabriel/Pomona Reg. Center CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jan  Pluim, Judge.  Reversed and remanded with directions.

            O'Neil & Matusek and Henry John Matusek for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Corrigan & Morris, Brian T. Corrigan and Stanley C. Morris for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________________

            This is a bodily injury case (dependent adult abuse and negligence) in which the trial court granted summary judgment.  We reverse.

FACTS

A.

            James Duran, a dependent adult within the meaning of section 15610.23 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, received day care services from the San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center and Integrated Community Options North (ICON).  In May 2003, while James and several other disabled persons were on the way home from a field trip, James suffered severe heat stroke resulting in a seizure that caused brain damage.

            In September 2003, James (through his guardian) sued the Regional Center, ICON, and Clemente Santos (the driver of the bus that James was on when he suffered his attack), alleging causes of action for dependent adult abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.07) and negligence.  In his subsequently filed second amended complaint, James alleged that Santos was a dual employee of the Regional Center and ICON, that both entities failed to train Santos to care for dependent adults such as James, and that Santos's negligence caused James's injuries.

B.

           The Regional Center answered, conducted discovery, then moved for summary judgment, contending it had not breached any statutory duty owed to James and that it had not been negligent.

            In a separate statement of undisputed facts, the Regional Center set forth â€