## Facts

- Joseph Rudolph Juge, Sr. rode his bicycle on the American River Bicycle Trail owned and maintained by the County of Sacramento.
- While rounding the El Manto curve, Juge lost control and collided with an oncoming bicyclist, leaving him a quadriplegic.
- Juge sued the County for negligence and dangerous condition of public property, alleging the trail did not comply with claimed statutory design specifications and that the design defect caused the crash.
- In support of summary judgment, the County submitted evidence (including Juge’s deposition and expert opinions) that:
  - Juge entered the curve at about 10–12 mph.
  - A design speed of 13 mph or less was safe and appropriate for the curve.
  - A witness observed Juge did not enter the curve rapidly.
- Juge did not dispute his actual speed; his expert opined that using a 20-mph design speed the curve should have had a larger radius and greater sight distance.
- The County’s motion argued design immunity and that the statutory bicycle-trail specifications relied upon by Juge did not apply; the trial court instead indicated it would grant summary judgment based on lack of causation and, after a hearing, did so.

## Issues

1. Whether Code of Civil Procedure § 437c requires a moving party to specify each legal ground for summary judgment in its moving papers.
2. Whether a trial court may grant summary judgment on a legal ground not explicitly advanced by the moving party when that ground is supported by an undisputed material fact in the parties’ separate statements.
3. What notice and opportunity to respond due process requires when the court relies on an untendered legal ground.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the County.
- Section 437c requires the moving party to state with specificity the grounds of law relied upon, but failure to do so does not eliminate the court’s power to grant summary judgment on another legal ground.
- A court may grant summary judgment on an untendered ground if it is dispositive based on an undisputed material fact in the separate statements and the opposing party is given adequate notice and an opportunity to respond.
- On the undisputed record, the County negated causation: Juge rode at 10–12 mph and the curve was shown to be safely designed for speeds up to 13 mph, while Juge offered no evidence of unsafe design at his actual speed.

## Legal Principles

- A summary judgment movant must identify with specificity in its moving papers each legal ground on which it seeks judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 437c.
- A trial court retains discretion to deny summary judgment when the movant fails to tender an otherwise dispositive legal ground, even if the record would support it.
- A trial court may nevertheless grant summary judgment on a legal theory not explicitly tendered by the movant if:
  - the theory is applied to an undisputed material fact contained in the parties’ separate statements, and
  - due process is satisfied through notice and an opportunity for the opponent to address the new ground.
- A defendant may obtain summary judgment by negating an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim (here, proximate causation); if the plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue on that element, judgment is proper.

## Conclusion

The court upheld summary judgment because the trial court could rely on an untendered causation theory supported by undisputed facts, so long as the plaintiff received notice and a chance to respond; the evidence showed the curve was safe at Juge’s undisputed speed, defeating proximate causation.


Juge v. County of Sacramento, 12 Cal. App. 4th 59, 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 598 (Ct. App. 1993)