Osaze v. Aparicio-Gee (2026) — California Court of Appeal, Certified for Publication
Sep 29, 2026OUTCOME: Summary judgment reversed; matter remanded with instructions to deny the defense motion. Costs awarded to plaintiffs on appeal. Opinion certified for publication.
Wrongful death and premises liability action arising from a fatal fall at a Bay Area business premises. Following the death of a customer who tripped and fell in an unmarked 1.25-inch threshold elevati ... on change while pursuing an unrestrained animal, plaintiffs' surviving family retained expert declarations from two biomechanical engineers and a veterinary hospital safety expert opining that the threshold elevation and the defendants' failure to secure the animal were substantial factors in the fall. The trial court granted the defense's motion for summary judgment, excluding the plaintiffs' expert declarations as "speculation" under Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747. Sami Sedghani of Synergist Law, P.C. prosecuted the appeal on behalf of the surviving family. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reversed. In a unanimous opinion certified for publication, the Court held that (1) the trial court misapplied Sargon by weighing the persuasiveness of the experts' opinions rather than analyzing their methodology; (2) the absence of an eyewitness to a fall does not, as a matter of law, render expert biomechanical causation opinion "speculative"; and (3) the trial court failed to construe the evidence and draw reasonable inferences in the non-moving parties' favor on summary judgment. The opinion is now binding California precedent on the proper application of Sargon to biomechanical expert testimony in unwitnessed premises liability cases. The opinion was certified for publication and may be cited as authority under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115.
