HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
FILED BY NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al.
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are denied. Civil Code section 846 does not bar claims against Amtrak for negligent operation of the train and there is a factual issue whether the engineer and assistant engineer were negligent. (Klein v. United States of America (2010) 50 Cal.4th 68, 73, 79; Plaintiff’s Additional Fact (“PAF”) Nos. 38, 39, 42-60, 62.) Further, section 846 does not apply to either Amtrak or BNSF even as to their duties as owners of an estate in real property if they are liable of willful misconduct, and there is a triable issue of fact whether they are. (PAF 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.)
As for the individual issues that defendants want adjudicated:
1. Plaintiff’s negligence claims based on premises liability are not barred by Section 846 for the reasons stated above;
2. Plaintiff’s ne
Hearing Date
September 05, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
FILED BY NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al.
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are denied. Civil Code section 846 does not bar claims against Amtrak for negligent operation of the train and there is a factual issue whether the engineer and assistant engineer were negligent. (Klein v. United States of America (2010) 50 Cal.4th 68, 73, 79; Plaintiff’s Additional Fact (“PAF”) Nos. 38, 39, 42-60, 62.) Further, section 846 does not apply to either Amtrak or BNSF even as to their duties as owners of an estate in real property if they are liable of willful misconduct, and there is a triable issue of fact whether they are. (PAF 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.)
As for the individual issues that defendants want adjudicated:
1. Plaintiff’s negligence claims based on premises liability are not barred by Section 846 for the reasons stated above;
2. Plaintiff’s ne