Leslie Padilla v. Ismael Ruano Rodas et. al.
Cite as 2008 SOS 1386
B195284

Limited Homeowner’s Liability on child’s death

In a case of first impression, Los Angeles' 2nd District Court of Appeal refused to make homeowners liable for accidents when mothers or fathers are on site.

The child involved in this case was Eddie, the son of Plaintiff Leslie Padilla.

Vilma Lopez, the sister of plaintiffs, together with her partner Ismael Rodas, was the defendants of this case.

The facts of the case are as follows:

• Sometime in 2004, Defendants (Vilma Lopez and Ismael Rodas) purchased a home in Granada Hills with a backyard pool.


• The pool was accessible through two sliding glass doors leading from the living room to the patio and pool area.


• At one time, Lopez invited Padilla and Eddie to their home on June 27, 2004.  They stayed overnight to June 28, the day of the drowning.


• Before 6:00 p.m. on June 28, Eddie was inside the house with Lopez.


• After Lopez left home about 6:00 p.m. to go to work, the only adults at the residence were Padilla and Rodas.


• Following the series of events, Eddie was found later on face down in the backyard pool.


• Eddie had gotten into the pool and fallen unconscious in the five minutes he was out of Padilla's sight.


• Paramedics took Eddie to the hospital emergency room, where he died later that evening.

Padilla brought suit for wrongful death and a survival action for negligence.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on three grounds:

1. That they had no duty to supervise Eddie and breached no duty to supervise him;


2. That even if the gate did not have a self-latching mechanism as required by City of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 91.6109, Padilla could not establish that the condition of the gate was a cause of the accident; and


3. That the action was barred by a release signed by Padilla in connection with her acceptance of $5,000 from Defendants' homeowner's insurer.

After two continuances and three hearings, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, Padilla appealed from the judgment.

In affirming the trial court’s findings in the summary judgment the Court of Appeals in the State of California Second Appellate District Division of One made the following pronouncements:

1. As to the issue that Defendants Had No Duty to Supervise Eddie
   
   
   • Defendants had no duty to supervise Eddie under the circumstances of this case. Neither Rodas nor Lopez engaged in conduct indicating that they had undertaken the responsibility to supervise Eddie when Padilla went into the house for a glass of water, and the policy considerations previously noted militate against imposition of such a duty.
   
   
   • Imposition of such a duty on homeowners would make them insurers of their guests' children's safety even when the parents are also present on the premises, a burden that is beyond all reasonable expectations of both homeowners and their guests.
   
   
2. As to the Padilla Cannot Establish Causation Element for Premises Liability Theory
   
   
   • Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the premises liability theory because, even if we assume that the gate was defective for lack of a self-latching mechanism, Padilla cannot establish the element of causation.
   
   
   • Accordingly, Padilla cannot establish that Defendants' failure to provide a self-latching gate was a substantial factor in causing Eddie's drowning. Under the foregoing principles set out in Saelzler, we must conclude that summary judgment was properly granted on the premises liability theory.