Lichtman

Lichtman v. Siemens Indus. Inc.

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 5th 914·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 957·224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725·2017 WL 4993457
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 2, 2017B265373California5,899 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Dunning, J.

*918 INTRODUCTION

On the night of plaintiffs' accident, there were no batteries in a traffic signal's battery backup unit. During a power outage, plaintiffs' vehicle entered the dark intersection and was struck by another car. Plaintiffs sued the entity responsible for maintaining the battery backup system, alleging its negligence proximately caused their injuries. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiffs as a matter of law. We reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2004, the City of Glendale (the City) installed battery backup units for traffic signals at various intersections to promote community safety by providing power in the event of a power outage. 1 Four years later, the City contracted with Siemens Industry Inc., doing business as Republic ITS (defendant), to perform preventive and extraordinary maintenance, service, *919 and repairs on electrical traffic-related devices at intersections in the City, including the battery backup system.

According to the City's traffic engineer, Khang Vu, the City expected defendant to provide notification when there was a problem with a traffic…

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.