LARSON, COREEN V. PUTZMEISTER AMERICA, INC

4. 24CV01428 LARSON, COREEN V. PUTZMEISTER AMERICA, INC EVENT: Defendant Putzmeister America, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively Summary Adjudication

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment are sustained as to Objection No. 7 regarding Fact No. 24, the Court finding that there is a lack of evidentiary support for the proffered material fact and overruled as to the remainder of the objections.

With regard to any objections raised by Defendant in the Defendant’s Reply in Support of Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, those objections are improperly raised solely as part of the Separate Statement, in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1354(b) [“All written objections to evidence must be served and filed separately from the other papers in support of or in opposition to the motion. Objections to specific evidence must be referenced by the objection number in the right column of a separate statement in opposition or reply to a motion, but the objections must not be restated or reargued in the separate statement.”] Defendant’s evidentiary objections are overruled.

The Court finds a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether any alleged defect existed when the pump left Defendant’s control, whether the incident occurred during a foreseeable or intended use, and whether Decedent’s death was caused by any modification or misuse by the Decedent (UMF Nos 5, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22; PUMF Nos. 17, 18, 31, 33, 34). Thus, the Court finds a triable issue of material fact exists as to the Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability – Design Defect and the Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication is denied as to that Cause of Action.

The Court finds a triable issue of material fact exists as to the sufficiency of the warnings provided by Defendant (UMF Nos. 26-30; PUMF Nos. 12, 18, 36, 40-43, 45-46, 48), and in regard to the application of the sophisticated user and sophisticated intermediary defenses, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to meet its burden of proof to establish the applicability of those defenses. The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability – Failure to Warn, is denied as to that Cause of Action.

The Court finds a triable issue of material facts exists as to causation (UMF Nos 5, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22; PUMF Nos. 6, 7, 17, 18, 21-22, 24, 26,-29, 30-31, 33-35), and therefore the Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action for Negligence is denied as to that Cause of Action.