Cody F. v. Falletti
Decision Date | 19 October 2001 |
Docket Number | No. A092552.,No. A092539.,No. A093075.,No. A091762.,A091762.,A092552.,A092539.,A093075. |
Citation | 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 593,92 Cal.App.4th 1232 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | CODY F., a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Thomas J. FALLETTI, Defendant and Respondent. Cody F., a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Union Bank of California, Defendant and Respondent. CODY F., a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Charles McLaughlin, Defendant and Respondent. Cody F., a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Crystal Cloud et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
This case arises from a dog attack resulting in tragic injuries to eleven-year-old Cody F. The attack occurred on a private road within a subdivision and was witnessed by Cody's mother and sister. The respondents, property owners and association members in the Rancho Tehama Subdivision Association (RTA), owned access easements over the road. Respondents obtained favorable dispositions on the pleadings in the trial court and Cody, his mother and sister have appealed.
Appellants ask this court to expand the scope of an easement owner's liability to cover this fact situation, even though the owner did not create the hazard, did not own the dogs, had no interest in the land from which the dogs escaped and did not own the road where the attack took place. The suggested basis for this expanded liability is the respondents' right to use the roads within the subdivision and their status as association members of a planned unit development. In general, courts have imposed a duty to prevent the harm caused by a third party's animal when a defendant possesses the means to control the animal or the relevant property and can take steps to prevent the harm. Appellants' theory does not fit within the boundaries of the existing law because the element of control is absent from this case.
Residents of a common interest subdivision may be close neighbors, but they are not their brother's keeper when it comes to policing activities on private property.1 We affirm the judgments because the easement owners did not have any duty of care to prevent the harm that occurred.
Because this appeal follows the granting of demurrers and motions for judgment on the pleadings, we rely only on the allegations of the complaint and matters hat were properly the subject of judicial notice in setting out the relevant facts.2 (Fosgate v. Gonzales (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 951, 957, 166 Cal.Rptr. 233.)
The Rancho Tehama Subdivision is a large planned development, managed by an incorporated property owners' association (RTA) that is responsible for maintenance of the private streets and promulgation and enforcement of rules for use and enjoyment of the streets. The powers of the nonprofit corporation are exercised by its board of directors, who are elected by the members. Every person who acquires title to a lot within the subdivision is a member of the RTA and has one vote. Each of the streets within the subdivision is a private street. The assessor's map shows ownership of each lot extends to the center of the street, so the lot owners own the portion of the street in front of their property. The declaration of restrictions states, in the paragraph entitled "Easements," that the predecessor of respondent Union Bank reserved for itself and the members of the RTA, tenants, and their invitees, an easement "for ingress and egress over each private street...."
Appellants' judicial council form complaint for general negligence and premises liability alleges that James Wick, not a party to these appeals, occupied lot number 1398 of the Rancho Tehama Subdivision, where he kept and trained over 20 vicious dogs, used for commercial boar hunting and guarding purposes in violation of the recorded declaration of restrictions of the subdivision. On September 6, 1998 in front of Wick's lot, Cody F. was badly mauled by Wick's dogs.3
The alleged basis for the liability of the respondents to this appeal, who did not own the dogs, the property they escaped from, or the road where the attack occurred, is alleged as follows in the causes of action for negligence and premises liability.4
The cause of action for premises liability alleges:
"[P]laintiff was injured on the following premises in the following fashion ... [t]he private street, owned and reserved for use by the Union Bank of California National Association ... on Rancho Tehama Subdivision and maintained by The Rancho Tehama Association, by delegation, in front of Lot 1398 on Laramie Point occupied by association member JAMES BYRON WICK and where he kept over twenty (20) vicious dogs ... and kept for a prolonged period after being commonly known to be a nuisance to other occupants and in violation of recorded declaration of restrictions for the welfare of other property residents, ... and resulted in causing the street to be in an unreasonably dangerous condition to result in the dogs mauling the passerby and harming plaintiffs...."5
The viability of appellants' claim of spoliation of evidence has been resolved by the decisions in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 248, 954 P.2d 511 ( ); Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 464, 466 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 852, 976 P.2d 223 ( ), and Coprich v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1083, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 884 ( ). Appellants raise no issue on appeal regarding that claim.
On November 16, 1999, respondent Thomas Falletti demurred to the complaint, arguing that neither his association membership nor his interest in an access easement over the private road where the attack occurred supported creation of a duty to appellants. On April 26, 2000, the court entered a judgment dismissing the action against Falletti after sustaining his demurrer without leave to amend.
Other respondents followed Falletti's lead. On April 17, 2000, Charles McLaughlin moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that, assuming for purposes of his motion that he was a property owner, such an owner has no duty under the facts alleged in the complaint. Union Bank joined in McLaughlin's motion, and subsequently filed its own motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 4, 2000, respondents Robert Wysocki, John and Dorothy Kilgore and Crystal Cloud filed separate motions for judgment on the pleadings and Mr. and Mrs. James T. Hixon filed a demurrer, asserting essentially the same arguments as were contained in the Falletti demurrer.
On May 10, 2000, the court granted the various motions of the respondents without leave to amend. Judgments were subsequently entered. Appellant appealed separately from each decision. Upon stipulation of the parties, we consolidated these appeals for purposes of decision and oral argument.
The complaint alleges that Cody's injuries occurred in the private street in front of Wick's lot number 1398. Appellants argue that respondents are liable for their injuries because the subdivision's recorded declaration of restrictions states that residents have easements for ingress and egress over the private streets within the subdivision, and because they are members of the RTA, which is alleged to be responsible for enforcing restrictions on dog ownership. After reviewing these contentions, we conclude that the respondents owed no duty to appellants in this case.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blackmore v. Powell, B185326.
...of the property, but merely the possessor of a `right to use someone's land for a specified purpose....'" (Cody F. v. Falletti (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1242, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, quoting Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. v. Godwin Liv. Trust (9th Cir.1994) 32 F.3d 1364, 1368; see Kazi v. Sta......
-
Colonial Van & Storage, Inc. v. Superior Court
...control of the property, a defendant cannot be held liable for a dangerous condition on that property. ( Cody F. v. Falletti (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1241, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 593 [" ‘[t]he law does not impose responsibility where there is no duty because of the absence of a right to control......
-
Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management
...575; Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 507, 118 Cal.Rptr. 741 (Uccello); see also Cody F. v. Falletti (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1236, 112 Cal. Rptr.2d 593 (Cody F.) ["In general, courts have imposed a duty to prevent the harm caused by a third party's animal when a defenda......
-
United States v. Sierra Pacific Indus.
...407, 410, 209 Cal.Rptr. 445 (1985). Landowners' attempt to distinguish the holding in Davert by applying Cody F. v. Falletti, 92 Cal.App.4th 1232, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 593 (2001) is unavailing. Rather, the situation here, where landowners own the subject land, is more similar to the facts of Dav......
-
Animal torts
...the court held that the duty to third parties is not as broad as that of the landowners in Davert . Cody F. v. Falletti , 92 Cal. App. 4th 1232, 112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 593, Cal. App. 1 Dist. (2001). §2:32 Trespassing Livestock Causing Foreseeable Damage The defendants were strictly liable for pe......
-
4.04 Pet Restrictions
...651 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).[142] Barwood Homeowners Ass'n v. Maser, 675 So.2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Compare Cody F. v. Falletti, 92 Cal.App. 4th 1232, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 593 (2001) (members of incorporated association had no duty to prevent dog attack).[143] Wilshire v. Kohlbrand, 368 So.2d......