Personal Injury Law

Defect In Sacramento Mall Sidewalk Not Trivial As Woman Is Injured, Part 5 of 5

By Moseley Collins, Esq.

The following blog entry is written from a defendant?s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(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.)

Notice of the Defect by the Property Owner or the Type of Property the Sidewalk Defect is Located Plays No Role in Determining Triviality.

In trivial defect doctrine cases it has sometimes been argued that because an individual or entity had notice of the defect's existence, such notice is a factor which can impose liability despite a defect otherwise being classified as trivial. Courts have uniformly rejected this argument. In Caloroso, the court said "minor defects ... [in sidewalks] inevitably occur, and the continued existence of such cracks without warning or repair is not unreasonable." Thus [the defendant] is not liable for this accident irrespective of the question whether he had notice of the condition. Caloroso v. Hathaway, 122 Cal. App. 4th 922, 927. (Also see: Barrett v. City of Claremont, 41 Cal. 2d 70, 73).

Notice of a defect does not somehow make a defect less trivial. Additionally, notice has never been included as an aggravating factor or a factor that is viewed as part of the totality of circumstances surrounding a defect in any of the leading sidewalk defect cases.

Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on May 25, 2010 (boomark / email).