Personal Injury Law

Sacramento Mall Pedestrian Trips And Falls On Dangerous Sidewalk, Part 8 of 9

By Moseley Collins, Esq.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this trip and fall/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Defendant states that "Mrs. Brown was concentrating on getting to her car and looking straight ahead." Plaintiff does not dispute this fact. However, Plaintiff does dispute the inference of negligence attributed to her for not staring closely at the sidewalk to discover a defect on the sidewalk. The law is quite clear on this subject: A pedestrian is not required to fix his eyes on the ground or to be on the constant lookout for danger; rather, he "has the right to assume that it (the sidewalk) is in a reasonably safe condition." Peters v. City and County of San Francisco (1953) 260 P.2d 55, 59, a California Supreme Court decision. Likewise, Plaintiff had a right to assume that the sidewalk at the Mall was safe to walk on.

Further, the above assertion is irrelevant to Defendant's trivial defect defense, as it pertains only, if at all, to the issue of contributory negligence.

Defendant also states that the Plaintiff was carrying a lightweight Macy's bag and her purse at the time of the incident. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, but asks the question: What relevancy does this fact bear on the Defendant's motion? The answer is: None.
Defendant then states that Plaintiff had no difficulty seeing at the time of her accident . Plaintiff does not dispute this fact; however, Plaintiff was not required to search the sidewalk for a defect as she was walking on it (Peters, supra, at page 59). So, what relevance does this fact have in this motion or case? T he answer is: None.

Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on May 14, 2010 (boomark / email).