Souza

Souza v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp.

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 262·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 472·2006 Daily Journal DAR 4033·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 389·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2821
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 5, 2006No. C049329California3,342 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Davis, J.

In this negligence and strict products liability action, a child skier collided with a plainly visible aluminum snowmaking hydrant located on a ski run. The trial court granted summary judgment to the ski resort and the hydrant distributor, deeming the collision an inherent risk of skiing under the primary assumption of risk doctrine and finding no basis for the products liability claim. We affirm. The pertinent facts will be set forth in the discussion that follows.

*265 Discussion

1. Standard of Review

“A motion for summary judgment ‘shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) An appellate court determines on its own whether these criteria have been met. (Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 836, 844 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ].) For purposes of a summary judgment motion, ‘[a] defendant.. . has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established . . . .’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.