DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
21CV-0710·slo·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

Peter Brinkerhoff et al. v. Universal Precast Concrete, Inc. et al.

Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

Hearing date
Jul 14, 2026
Department
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Summary Judgment rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffPeter Brinkerhoff
PlaintiffErin Brinkerhoff
DefendantRobertson Industries, Inc.
DefendantUniversal Precast Concrete, Inc.

Ruling

Peter Brinkerhoff et al. v. Universal Precast Concrete, Inc. et al., 21CV-0710

Hearing: Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication

Date: July 14, 2026

Peter Brinkerhoff and his wife Erin Brinkerhoff (Plaintiffs) filed this action for personal injury and loss of consortium arising from injuries Peter Brinkerhoff sustained when sliding down a cement slide at Pismo Beach. Defendant Robertson Industries, Inc. (Robertson) filed the subject motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication on the grounds that there is no evidence Robertson was negligent and there is no evidence Robertson caused the alleged injuries.

On March 20, 2026, Robertson served proper notice of the motion on all parties. On July 2, 2026, Robertson filed and served notice that Plaintiffs had not filed opposition to the motion. No opposition has been filed by any party.

However, even when unopposed, the trial court is required to determine that no dispute of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Robertson presents evidence establishing it provided installation of the landing surface under the end of the slide and Peter Brinkerhoff came to a stop and was injured higher up on the slide and not by contact with the landing surface. (UFs 1-5.) Robertson presents evidence establishing it was not involved in or responsible for installation of the slide, safety warnings, or safety inspections. (UFs 6-8.)

Plaintiffs allege negligence and strict products liability against Robertson. The Court finds sufficient evidence that there is no triable issue of material fact as to negligence because there is no evidence Robertson was involved in the design, installation, safety, or maintenance of the concrete slide itself. There is no evidence that Robertson’s product, i.e. the rubber landing surface, was defective or was a cause of the alleged injuries. There is also no evidence any conduct by Robertson caused Peter Brinkerhoff’s injuries.

The motion is granted.

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share