This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Premises Liability
Trip and Fall

Jihad N. Captan v. Wowrentals Inc., Thomas Johnson, Debra Johnson, and Does 1 to 100

Published: Jul. 12, 2024 | Result Date: Mar. 21, 2024 | Filing Date: Dec. 7, 2020 |

Case number: CIVSB2028465 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Carlos M. Cabrera

Court

San Bernardino County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Taylor J. Gaines
(Batta Fulkerson)


Defendant

Brian Otis Felder
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)

Peter K. Chu
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)


Facts

WowRentals Inc. and Thomas and Deborah Johnson entered into a short-term rental agreement with Janet Captan for a vacation property. During her stay, one of her guests, Jihad Captan, tripped and fell as she was walking on a concrete pathway in the backyard, sustaining injuries due to the pathway's unevenness and general lack of maintenance. Jihad sued WowRentals and the Johnsons in San Bernardino Superior for premise liability and general negligence.

WowRentals and the Johnsons then filed a complaint against Janet Captan, alleging, among others, breach of contract and express indemnity. According to WowRentals and the Johnsons, Janet's rental agreement contained an express indemnity clause, placing responsibility on Janet for indemnifying WowRentals and the Johnsons for any injuries sustained by guests at the rental property.

Result

Both parties provided experts attesting to the height difference of the contested concrete slab. The court noted that regardless of the height discrepancies asserted between the parties, the elevation difference was not a dangerous condition given that both measurements were below 1.5 inches. As no other factors such as jagged edges or broken pieces were involved, the elevation was considered trivial. Moreover, the elevation difference was not hidden as nothing was blocking its view, and it was open and obvious. Accordingly, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.


#143090

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390