JOSHUA BANCES VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC619632    Hearing Date: April 19, 2021    Dept: 27

Case Number: BC619632    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO BIFURCATE LIABILITY FROM DAMAGES

On May 19, 2016, plaintiff Joshua Bances, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Sandra Sique, filed this action against defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”) for negligent supervision. Plaintiff alleges he was struck on the head twice with a brick by a classmate while working on a group project outside the classroom at school. Defendant moves to bifurcate issues of liability and damages at trial.

“The court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order, no later than the close of pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference in cases in which such pretrial conference is to be held, or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date, that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any party thereof in the case . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 598.) Where trial of the issue of liability as to all causes of action precedes the trial of other issues or parts thereof and the decision of the court or jury is in favor of the allegedly liable party, judgment in favor of that party shall be entered and no trial of other issues in the action against that party will be had. (Ibid.) If the decision of the court or jury on the issue of liability is against the party allegedly liable, the trial of the other issues shall be had before the same or another jury as ordered by the court. (Ibid.)

“Section 598 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the trial court power to order ‘that the trial of the issue of liability shall precede the trial of any other issue in the case . . . ‘Its objective is avoidance of the waste of time and money caused by the unnecessary trial of damage questions in cases where the liability issue is resolved against the plaintiff.’ [Citation.]” (Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 385.) However, the court cannot order the separate trial of an issue of liability when because of the nature of the case it is necessary to prove the plaintiff’s damages in order to establish that liability. (Cook v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 832, 834.)

Defendant argues the liability stage will be wholly separated from the issue of damages as there are no overlapping witnesses and the jury will only be asked to determine whether LAUSD acted negligently on November 19, 2015. Defendant states each side has only retained one expert witness in connection with the issue of whether Defendant acted negligently. Defendant also argues that introducing testimony about Plaintiff’s injuries will be prejudicial because the medical issues are irrelevant to the issues surrounding liability.

In opposition, Plaintiff submits an attorney declaration which claims there are seven overlapping witnesses for the liability and damages phase, but does not identify who they are. (Declaration of Kelly Ka In Chan, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff also argues that liability and damages are intertwined and that information about Plaintiff’s injuries is important to determining Defendant’s duty to supervise and whether Defendant acted negligently. Plaintiff also contends that bifurcation will be prejudicial because Plaintiff and Defendants will have to duplicate opening statements and closing arguments, jury instructions, and jury deliberations, which will increase trial expenses.

To prove his negligence claim, Plaintiff will need to show that Defendant was negligent, Plaintiff was harmed, and Defendant’s “negligence was a substantial factor in causing [Plaintiff’s] harm.” (CACI No. 400.) “A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contribute to the harm . . . Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.” (CACI No. 430.) Thus, Plaintiff will need to prove that Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing his harm.

The parties dispute what caused Plaintiff’s injury, if any occurred. Plaintiff contends another student hit him on the head twice with a brick. Defendant argues the student placed a brick on Plaintiff’s head. Evidence about what the other student did with the brick and how the brick impacted Plaintiff will likely be part of the damages analysis. Likewise the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries is likely to be part of the evidence about whether the student hit Plaintiff with a brick. For example, that Plaintiff suffered head injuries on the day of the accident could be evidence he was hit hard on the head with a brick and did not just have a brick placed on his head. Similarly, whether Defendant was negligently supervising the students may depend in part on whether the other student actually hit Plaintiff with a brick.

Because bifurcation would not lead to economy and efficiency given this potential overlap in evidence, the Motion to bifurcate is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.