Stathoulis v City of Montebello
filed June 30, 2008,
Second District, Div. Eight
Cite as 2008 SOS 3850

Ruling on Liability of City Government in Street Accident Reversed

On March 22, 2005, Stathoulis attended a funeral service for a family friend. Following the service, she was invited to attend a reception at the home of the decedent’s family located in a duplex in Montebello.

Stathoulis parked across the street from the reception. As she crossed the street, the heel of one of her shoes caught embedded in a depression in the street pavement. As, she was trying to remove it she was immobilized and unable to regain her balance. She struck the pavement fracturing teeth and causing lacerations to her face. She did not see the gouges in the street before she fell.

Stathoulis filed a complaint against the City of Montebello alleging negligence for the dangerous condition of the street.

The City of Montebello contends that they could not be held liable because the gouge marks in the street, is a trivial defects. In support of its motion, the City submitted a declaration by the Department of Public Works Manager who took photographs of the gouge marks at the location.

The City move for summary judgment on the ground that it is immune from liability, because the defect is trivial as a matter of law.

The court granted the summary judgment.

In response, plaintiff Stathoulis filed an appeal.

Whether the holes constitute a dangerous condition, presents triable factual issue.

The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Montebello. Liability may attach to a governmental entity if there is a dangerous condition on governmental property. A condition is dangerous if it creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.

According to section 835, a public entity is liable for injury caused by dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury. That the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition which the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury, which was incurred. Moreover, either, a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity created the dangerous condition, or constructive notice of the time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.

The Trivial Defect Doctrine

An initial and essential element of recovery for premises liability under the governing statutes is a proof of a dangerous condition existed.

The decision whether a crack or other defect in a walkway is dangerous does not exist entirely on the size of the depression. Instead, the court should consider other existing circumstances such as the size of defect, condition of the walkway and weather condition at the time of the accident.

In this case, there is no dispute that any gouge mark was about one inch deep. It is clear that there were no debris, and no cars or other obstructions to impede Stathoulis ability to see gouge marks in the street.

Although only Stathoulis has been injured, she presented evidence that the holes existed for three years.

Finally, the presence of not one but three irregularly shaped and sizeable holes of about an inch deep flanking one another in the street may have increased the risk of injury to a reasonably careful pedestrian, and decreased the possibility of his or her recovery.

The court concludes that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the nature and quality of the defect at issue presented a substantial risk of injury. Because reasonable minds can differ on the issue, the trial court erred in finding the defect to be trivial as a matter of law. Summary judgment was not appropriate.

Judgment is reversed. Stathoulis is entitled to cost on appeal.