Plaintiff’s Fourth Appeal Relative To The Placement Of Light Poles.

Plaintiff was injured when the car in which she was riding collided with another car in an intersection and then hit a light pole, erected 18 inches from the curb, and owned by a utility company. In the first two appeals, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a county and a city. In the third appeal, summary judgment in favor of the utility company was reversed because of triable issues of fact whether it owed a duty of care to motorists relative to the placement of street lights. On remand, the utility company successfully argued in a motion for judgment on the pleadings that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Public Utilities Commission [PUC] has exclusive jurisdiction, and plaintiff once again appeals. The appellate court reversed the granting of the utility company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, stating: “In conclusion, we find that while the PUC may have concurrent jurisdiction with the local entity relative to the placement of light poles, it did not, in this case, exercise that authority.”

In another issue, the trial court sustained without leave to amend the city’s demurrer to the utility company’s cross-complaint because the utility company did not file a timely governmental claim against the city. The appellate court affirmed that ruling stating: “[W]e find that SCE’s cross-complaint is based on facts outside of the pleadings, of which the City was a party, such that the cross-complaint is not solely defensive in nature. Because of this, compliance with the Government Claims Act was necessary.” Laabs v. Southern California Edison Company (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 2; June 17, 2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 218.