Sarjeant v. City of Long Beach

Background

Herrick Steel moved for summary judgment, asking the court to resolve claims before trial because it argued that no genuine dispute of important facts required a jury’s decision. The order addressed Sarjeant’s negligence, fraudulent-concealment, punitive-damages, and product-liability claims.

A key issue on negligence was whether Sarjeant had been around Herrick workers, who performed bulkhead removal and deck installation on at least the upper decks. In a May 2 deposition, Sarjeant testified that he was always assigned to the engine room and had not been assigned fire-watch work elsewhere on the ship. In a September 9 deposition, he testified that he had also worked in other areas, including the upper decks.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered whether Sarjeant’s later deposition testimony was a sham—that is, testimony so inconsistent with earlier testimony that it should be disregarded at the summary-judgment stage. The court found the question close and expressed strong skepticism about the later testimony, but it did not find that the testimony met the legal definition of a sham.

The court explained that the sham-testimony rule must be applied cautiously because summary judgment is not the time for a court to decide credibility or weigh conflicting evidence. It also noted that conflicting deposition testimony may result from confusion or pressure. The court considered Sarjeant’s age, serious illness during the litigation, his wife’s death in July, and the fact that he was recalling events from nearly 60 years earlier. The court concluded that a jury could decide whether Sarjeant’s testimony was credible.

For fraudulent concealment, the court relied on its prior order stating that the claim requires some kind of transactional relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The court found that Sarjeant presented no evidence of such a relationship with Herrick. For punitive damages, the court found no evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud sufficient for a jury to award them. The cited testimony from Herrick’s corporate representative—that he did not know whether Herrick took precautions concerning asbestos inhalation—was insufficient. Sarjeant conceded the product-liability claim.

Ruling

Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part Herrick Steel’s motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied on the negligence claim and granted on fraudulent concealment, punitive damages, and product liability.