What is a dangerous condition of public property?

Useful Rulings on Dangerous Condition of Public Property

Recent Rulings on Dangerous Condition of Public Property

STEPHEN LASHBROOK VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property and negligence in the complaint in relation to a trip-and-fall that occurred on May 23, 2017. On November 8, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 10 seeking indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief. On February 7, 2020, the Court granted Defendants James P. Argyropoulos’ and Peter J. Argyropoulos 2013 Irrevocable Trust’s motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROBERT ARTHUR FERBER VS CITY OF CALABASAS ET AL

Law Governing Trivial Defect Calabasas’s contention is that the subject sidewalk was, at most, a trivial defect and not a dangerous condition of public property. A “dangerous condition” is a condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner which is reasonably foreseeable. Ordinarily, the existence of a dangerous condition is a question of fact.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ELISEO PLACIDO-LOPEZ VS SAN MIGUEL AUTO REPAIR, ET AL.

Moving Burden “[A] landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the inspection of his commercial property and to remove a dangerous condition, which includes a dog, from the premises, if he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care would have known, the dog was dangerous and usually present on the premises.” Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1132.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

LORI ANN MANBY VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ET AL

entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or¿ (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”¿ Moving Defendant argues summary judgment must be granted against Plaintiff with regard to Plaintiff’s dangerous condition of public property cause of action for two reasons.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

ANITA HERREMAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

BACKGROUND This action arises out of a trip and fall on a public sidewalk. On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Anita Herreman filed a complaint against the City of Los Angeles (the “City”), American Builders Supply, RJ’s Construction Tools & Supply and RJ’s Demolition & Disposal (collectively “RJ’s Construction”), and Cutler Steel for premises liability and actual notice of dangerous condition of property pursuant to Government Code §§835(b), 835.2(a).

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LORI ANN MANBY VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ET AL

entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or¿ (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”¿ Moving Defendant argues summary judgment must be granted against Plaintiff with regard to Plaintiff’s dangerous condition of public property cause of action for two reasons.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

ELIJAH HAMMET VS WHITTIER SCHOOL

This is an action alleging a dangerous condition on school property, arising from an incident on September 5, 2017 during which the plaintiff minor, a special education student, "went through a defective and dangerous glass door" at 3401 Clairemont Dr. in San Diego, "which shattered," causing him "severe injuries." Although the complaint was filed in September of 2018, summons was improvidently issued as no guardian ad litem was appointed until April of 2019. ROA 42.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EUSTOLIA HERNANDEZ VS SAM'S WEST, INC., ET AL.

But once again, these statements do not address Plaintiff’s allegation that the way the milk cartons were displayed constituted a dangerous condition and posed an unreasonable risk for harm to persons acting in a reasonably foreseeable manner. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant has not met its moving burden to establish Plaintiff cannot prove a dangerous condition existed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

DELMY YOJANA CASTEJON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The complaint alleges a dangerous condition of public property for a slip-and-fall that occurred on December 6, 2016. On February 26, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant City of Los Angeles, acting by and through Defendant Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, filed a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 10 seeking equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

MIRNA AMAYA VS THE SALVATION ARMY

The critical issue here is whether Salvation Army had notice, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition of the premises in sufficient time to either correct it or warn patrons of its existence. For a store owner to be liable for injuries to a business invitee caused by a dangerous condition on its premises, the owner must have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. (Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1203.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

GLENN GAZA ET AL VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATI

., and John Wilson, Jr. filed a complaint against State of California-CALTRANS, City of Redondo Beach, County of Los Angeles, and Margo Bronstein for (1), (2) dangerous condition of public property—personal injury and wrongful death, (3) loss of consortium, and (4) negligence. On December 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed a FAC. Plaintiffs allege that on December 17, 2014, a group of eleven people were leaving a Christmas performance at St.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GUADALUPE M LOPEZ VS EL MONTE CITY SCHOOL DISTICT ET AL

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against District, Royal, APM, Nazerian, G&Y and Does 3-100 for: Dangerous Condition of Public Property Negligence Negligent Hiring/Retention/Supervision and/or Training On November 27, 2019, District and Thompson filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Royal, APM, Nazerian, G&Y and Zoes 1-25 for: Express Contractual Indemnity Equitable Indemnity on a Comparative Fault Basis Apportionment

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RONALD GREEN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ET AL

Government Code section 835 states:¿“Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a 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, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and either: (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

RONALD GREEN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ET AL

employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SEAN ROSS PAUL VS TISHMAN SPEYER ARCHSTONE-SMITH ET AL

condition (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LIWEN HSU TOGI VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

Allegations Plaintiff Liwen Hsu Togi (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on March 3, 2017, she fell as a result of a dangerous condition while on her way to work. She alleges that Defendants were the possessors, controllers, managers, designers, maintainers, inspectors, supervisors, and owners of the portion of public sidewalk, parkway, and trees abutting the real property at 1013 Mound Avenue, South Pasadena, California 91030.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

See Lopez (1985) 40 C3d 780, 795 (negligence against a public entity must be pled with particularity). Plaintiff never identifies a prior specific incident which put, or should have put, Regents on notice of Hang’s unfitness and/or dangerous propensities. (See FAC ¶¶47, 48, 92); Brenner (2003) 113 CA4th 434, 439 (dangerous condition claim cannot rely on general allegations that the condition was dangerous, but must explain the manner in which the condition is dangerous).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RANVIR KAUR V. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

Kaur commenced this action by filing her complaint in which she asserts the first cause of action for dangerous condition of public property against the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) and the second cause of action for dangerous condition of public property against Does 1–25. Additionally, Kaur asserts a third cause of action for negligence against Morris and his employer, defendant McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. (“McCarthy”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

, or (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in time to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CASHIA LACRECIA KIRKSEY VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

In the alternative, the Court grants summary judgment based upon Defendant’s evidence that the staircase presented no dangerous condition. A “dangerous condition” is a condition of public property that “create[s] a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used.” (Gov. Code, § 830.2.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ABEL MONTES ET AL VS YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSN OF GLENDALE

Plaintiffs argued that the defendant was liable for “failing to correct, warn of, or otherwise protect [plaintiff prospective buyer] from the dangerous condition of the diving board.” (Id. at p. 446).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

HARRY SLOAN V. PEOPLES’ SELF-HELP HOUSING CORP., THE DUNCAN GROUP CORP.

In addition, a plaintiff suing for premises liability has the burden of proving that the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition in time to correct it, or that the owner was “able by the exercise of ordinary care to discover the condition.” (Ortega, supra, 26 Cal. 4th at p. 1206, quoting Girvetz v. Boys' Market, Inc. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 827, 829.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

DANIEL MENCHACA VS REULAND ELECTRIC CO.

The plaintiff included additional facts in a separate statement alleging that the vehicle struck a different object, which was an additional basis for dangerous condition liability. (Id. at p. 1252.) The court held that the additional fact shifted the alleged dangerous condition to a portion of public property not remotely referenced in the amended complaint and predicated liability on a different condition. (Id. at p. 1258.) Here, Plaintiff’s complaint identifies only an April 2016 work injury.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ASHLEY GONZALEZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

All but one are purely legal issues, and the requested discovery does not relate to Defendant’s argument that there was no dangerous condition of public property. Neither the motion nor the reply establish that the requested discovery is necessary in order to oppose the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on this motion to the same date as the motion for summary judgment: October 9, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN JUNIOR YOUNG V. RUPINDER KUR

Plaintiff’s complaint includes a count against Defendant for maintaining a dangerous condition on public property. (Complaint at Prem.L-4.) FAMILY CLEANERS is not a public entity and does not own public property. FAMILY CLEANERS’s motion to strike is granted without leave to amend. The following portions of Plaintiff’s complaint are stricken: the punitive damages prayer on page 3, paragraph 14(a)(2) and Premises Liability Count Three at paragraph Prem.L-4.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 86     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.