Gavin W. v. Ymca
Decision Date | 26 February 2003 |
Docket Number | No. B152821.,B152821. |
Citation | 106 Cal.App.4th 662,131 Cal.Rptr.2d 168 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | GAVIN W., a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. YMCA OF METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Law Offices of Santiago, Rodnunsky & Jones, Artemio M. Santiago and David G. Jones for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
McCune & Harbor, Dana John McCune and Cindy Nguyen, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles, Laurie Pinkston and Mac Johnston.
Rehwald, Rameson, Lewis & Glasner, William Rehwald, Lawrence M. Glasner and Daniel R. Chaleff, Woodland Hills, for Defendant and Respondent Camila Garcia.
For the vast majority of working families affordable, quality child care services are an indispensable ingredient of every day life. Yet the demand in California for such services, particularly for children five years old and younger, far exceeds the supply. Under these circumstances contracts for child care services are necessarily "affected with a public interest." Accordingly, we hold a release of claims that purports to exculpate a child care provider from its own negligence is void as against public policy under Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441 (Tunkl).
Gavin W. and his parents sued the YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles and certain YMCA employees1 for damages arising from an incident of sexual touching between Gavin and another child in the YMCA's child care program. The trial court found a release of claims signed by Gavin's parents when they enrolled Gavin in the program barred their claims for negligence and breach of contract. A jury rejected the family's remaining claim. Gavin and his parents have appealed, contending the release is unenforceable. We agree.
Gavin W.'s parents, Calvin and Annette W., both worked full time. In June 1996 they enrolled Gavin in the child care program at the YMCA and, as part of the enrollment process, signed a waiver and release of liability in favor of the YMCA. In September 1997, when Gavin was not quite four years old, he and four-year-old Emilio B. were observed in the bathroom at the child care center with their pants down. Gavin later told his mother Emilio had made him put Emilio's penis in his mouth. Gavin's parents subsequently discovered Emilio had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with another boy at the child care center some weeks earlier and had reported being molested by his grandfather. They also learned the YMCA had been aware of those facts before the incident between Gavin and Emilio.
Gavin and his parents filed suit against the YMCA for breach of contract, negligence,2 fraud and several other intentional torts. The complaint alleged the YMCA had knowledge of Emilio's propensity towards inappropriate sexual conduct and should have taken steps to protect Gavin from Emilio.
Prior to trial, the YMCA moved for disposition of issues of law prior to issues of fact. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 592 & 597.) One of the issues identified was the effect of the release signed by Gavin's parents on the negligence claims. The trial court granted the motion and requested supplemental briefs on the validity of the release.
The parties stipulated to the following facts with respect to the validity of the release:
The text of the release was not included in the stipulation, nor was a copy of the release attached to the briefs filed by the parties in the trial court. However, the parties agree the relevant portion of the release provides:
After briefing and oral argument, the trial court ruled the release was enforceable and not void as against public policy. It therefore dismissed the cause of action for breach of contract and the three negligence-based causes of action.
Ultimately, the court dismissed all of the claims asserted by Gavin and all but the fraud cause of action alleged by his parents. The jury then returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the YMCA on the remaining claim. Judgment was entered on August 3, 2001. This appeal followed.
Gavin and his parents filed a notice of appeal "from the Judgment entered on August 3, 2001." The YMCA erroneously contends this notice preserves only the right to appeal from the jury's verdict and does not permit appellate review of the trial court's ruling on the special defense of the release.
Trial on the issue of the release was conducted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 597, which provides that special defenses "not involving the merits of the plaintiffs cause of action but constituting a bar . . . to the prosecution there of may be tried "before the trial of any other issue in the case." An order resulting from the trial of a special defense under Code of Civil Procedure section 597 is nonappealable, but is properly challenged on appeal from the final judgment. (Woodhouse v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 22, 25, 245 P.2d 701.)
" (People v. Rath Packing Co. (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 308, 336, 149 Cal. Rptr. 431.) The appeal from the final judgment in this case properly encompassed the ruling on the trial of the special defense of the YMCA release. (See also California Rules of Court, rule 1(a); D'Avola v. Anderson (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 358, 361, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 [...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heilig v. Touchstone Climbing, Inc., A113901 (Cal. App. 10/30/2007)
......v. TEG Oil & Gas U.S.A., Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 453, 468, citing Tunkl, supra, 60 Cal.2d 92, 98-101; see also Gavin W. v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 662, 671; Franklin v. Marie Antoinette Condominium Owners Assn. (1993) 19 ......
-
Fetters v. Cnty. of L. A., B252287
......The issues presented at the Heck hearing involved questions of law, which 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 856 we review de novo. ( Gavin W. v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 662, 669–670, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 168 [reviewing de novo trial of special defense where ......
-
City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court
......( Tunkl, supra, 60 Cal.2d at pp. 95-96, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441; see also Gavin W. v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 662, 670, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 168.) In Tunkl, our Supreme Court recognized that the ......
-
City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court
...143 Cal.Rptr. 247, 573 P.2d 465 [release of liability for negligence by residential landlord]; Gavin W. v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 662, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 168 [release of liability for negligence by provider of child care services]; Pelletier v. Alameda Yacht Ha......
-
Table of Cases
...343, 348 (1987), §12:71 Gardner v. City of San Jose (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 798, §17:160 Gavin W. v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 168 (Ct. App. 2003), §15:03 Genrich v. State of California (1988) 202 Cal.App.3rd 221, pp. 227, 228, §17:172 Gifford v. Four-County Elec. Pow......
-
Sexual Molestation Claims: Liability and Coverage Issues
...and molestation clearly violates the terms and conditions of the agreement. See Gavin W. v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles , 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 168 (2003). (Rev. 13, 6/04) §4140 INSURANCE SETTLEMENT HANDBOOK 41-6 §4140 Liability of Perpetrator’s Employer More often than not, the plaintiff’......
-
Sexual Molestation Cases
...psychotherapist or other professional, a daycare provider, a youth organization). See Gavin W. v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles , 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 168 (Ct. App. 2003). Against employer or principal: • Vicarious liability. [ See §15:11.] • Negligence. [ See §15:12.] • Fraud. • Breach of ......