California Sidewalk Defects and Trip & Fall Accidents

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What was the height differential of the first defect in the sidewalk?

One and three-quarter inches (correct)

One and a half inches

Two inches

One inch

What was the total distance between the two defects in the sidewalk?

15 feet

10 feet

25 feet

20 feet (correct)

How many times had the plaintiff jogged over the sidewalk in the previous two years?

200 times

400 times

300 times (correct)

100 times

What was the plaintiff's injury when he tripped over the sidewalk?

Broken wrist Signup and view all the answers

What did the plaintiff's human factors expert testify regarding the fall risk for joggers?

The proximity of the defects increased the fall risk for joggers Signup and view all the answers

What was the judgment of the trial court on the negligence cause of action?

Granted the City a judgment of nonsuit Signup and view all the answers

What was the jury's verdict in the case?

In favor of the plaintiff Signup and view all the answers

What did the appeals court hold regarding the dangerousness of the sidewalk condition?

The question of dangerousness was properly left to the jury for a factual determination Signup and view all the answers

What was the height differential of the first sidewalk defect?

One and three-quarter inches Signup and view all the answers

How many times had the plaintiff jogged over the sidewalk before the incident?

What did the plaintiff's human factors expert testify about the proximity of the two defects?

It increased the fall risk for joggers Signup and view all the answers

What did the plaintiff's human factors expert opine about the pine needles at the base of the first defect?

They made it more difficult to judge the contrast of where the defect starts and ends Signup and view all the answers

What did the jury find in plaintiff's favor?

The sidewalk was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident Signup and view all the answers

What did the City argue in their appeal?

The sidewalk condition was too trivial to constitute a dangerous condition under section 835 Signup and view all the answers

What is the minimum height differential for a sidewalk defect to not be considered trivial as a matter of law?

One and three-quarter inches Signup and view all the answers

What should courts consider when assessing the triviality of sidewalk defects?

The size of the defect and the circumstances surrounding the accident Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Appeals Court Rules on Sidewalk Trip and Fall Case

Plaintiff tripped over a raised slab of public sidewalk, breaking his wrist.
The sidewalk had two defects caused by tree roots pushing it up.
The first defect was elevated about 1.75 inches above its neighboring panel.
The second defect was approximately 20 feet beyond the first defect, creating a "weird sort of downslope and upslope" between the two.
Plaintiff was familiar with both defects, having jogged over the sidewalk 300 times in the previous two years.
Plaintiff's human factors expert testified that the proximity of the two defects increased the fall risk for joggers.
The expert also opined that the layer of pine needles at the base of the first defect made it difficult to judge the contrast of where the defect starts and ends.
Plaintiff sued the City for general negligence and for maintaining a dangerous condition on public property in violation of Government Code section 835.
The trial court granted the City a judgment of nonsuit on the negligence cause of action, but denied the City's motions on the section 835 cause of action.
The jury returned a special verdict in plaintiff's favor, finding that the sidewalk was in a dangerous condition at the time of the incident and awarded plaintiff nearly $90,000 in damages.
The City appealed, arguing that the sidewalk condition was too trivial to constitute a dangerous condition under section 835.
The appeals court disagreed and held that the question of dangerousness was properly left to the jury for a factual determination, using a holistic, multi-factor analysis.Assessing the Triviality of Sidewalk Defects in California
A height differential of one and three-quarter inches at slightly left of center of the ridge is not considered trivial as a matter of law in California.
Photographs in evidence support the inference that the raised sidewalk slab of the first defect angles slightly upward, meaning a fact-finder could conclude that the height differential was even greater at the right end of the first defect.
The first defect is nearly double the one-inch threshold where courts generally grow reluctant to find the defect not dangerous as a matter of law.
No firmly fixed “arbitrary measurement in inches below which a defect is trivial as a matter of law and above which it becomes a question of fact whether or not the defect is dangerous” exists.
When assessing the triviality of sidewalk defects, courts should not rely solely on the size of the defect, although the defect’s size “may be one of the most relevant factors” to the court’s decision.
A court should determine whether there existed any circumstances surrounding the accident, which might have rendered the defect more dangerous than its mere abstract depth would indicate.
In California, there is no firmly fixed “one and one-half-inch threshold” for sidewalk defects deemed trivial as a matter of law.
The more accurate encapsulation is that “when the size of the depression begins to stretch beyond one inch the courts have been reluctant to find that the defect is not dangerous as a matter of law.”
In most cases, a court will discourage judging a defect purely by tape measure, and a defect under one inch high will not be considered trivial as a matter of law if circumstances surrounding the accident rendered the defect more dangerous than its mere abstract depth would indicate.
Holistic multi-factor framework should be adopted for assessing triviality, rather than the “two-step” framework espoused by other Courts of Appeal.
The minimum one- and three-quarter-inch height differential of a sidewalk defect weighs heavily against finding the sidewalk condition trivial as a matter of law.
The height of a sidewalk defect is one of the many circumstances to be considered when assessing triviality, and it remains the “ ‘most important’ ” of the dangerous condition factors.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Test your knowledge on California's laws regarding sidewalk defects and trip and fall accidents with this quiz. Learn about the factors that determine whether a sidewalk defect is trivial or dangerous, and understand how courts make their decisions in cases involving injuries sustained on public property. Discover the importance of a holistic, multi-factor analysis in assessing the triviality of sidewalk defects, and how factors such as the height of the defect and surrounding circumstances can impact the outcome of a case.