Personal Injury Law

Dangerous Sidewalk Condition Results In Fall At Sacramento Mall, Part 6 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.)

In the instant case, Plaintiff's theory of the liability of Defendant Universal Mall is neither based upon or determined by the burden of proof set forth in the Government Code. And, as one can see, based on the discussion of liability in the Fielder case, the court focused on the issue of what is a "dangerous condition" of public property, citing numerous cases where the defendant was always a public entity.

However, even in Fielder, the court conceded, on the issue of whether a particular condition is a dangerous or defection condition, that other courts, such as the court in Gentekos v. City and County of San Francisco (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 691, 309 P. 2d 943, have held that whether a condition is dangerous or defective is generally a question of fact. See Fielder, at p. 730. But again, as stated, the Fielder decision is a narrowly construed case, as it only applies to premises liability actions against public entities in California.

Returning to the decision in Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 922, cited by Defendant, the defect in that case was an elevation on the sidewalk that was less than one-half inch at its highest point. It is no wonder that the court considered this to be a trivial defect. Contrast that defect with the one in Plaintiff Judy Brown's case: a one-inch elevation and a one-inch gap between the sidewalk pavers. (See Part 7 of 9.)

Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on May 09, 2010 (boomark / email).