What is a dangerous condition of public property?

Useful Rulings on Dangerous Condition of Public Property

Recent Rulings on Dangerous Condition of Public Property

RENEE STARR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Indeed, this case is more appropriately pursued as a dangerous condition of public property case, as section 835 sets out the exclusive conditions under which a public entity is liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property. (Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1129, citing Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 829; see also Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112.)

  • Hearing

JENNIFER LITTLE VS JONATHAN LOPEZ ET AL

The complaint alleges motor vehicle negligence, negligence, premises liability, and statutory liability for dangerous condition of public property for an automobile-pedestrian collision that occurred on November 9, 2016. On May 20, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint and the motion was granted on July 17, 2020. On August 4, 2020, judgment was entered for Defendant. On August 6, 2020, Defendant filed a notice of entry of judgment.

  • Hearing

JAMES A. WILSON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

The complaint alleges Defendant negligently allowed a dangerous condition of public property to exist on the street or sidewalk and failed to warn of the dangerous condition. On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, Yosi Yahoudai of Javaheri & Yahoudai, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. No opposition has been filed. Trial is set for August 24, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Plaintiff’s counsel, Yosi Yahoudai of Javaheri & Yahoudai, seeks a court order relieving them as counsel for Plaintiff James A.

  • Hearing

PEDRO GONZALEZ CRUZ, ET AL. VS JAMES WOOD PROPERTIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ liability for harm caused by the dangerous condition, i.e., Sandoval, continued even after the property changed hands if Defendants failed to disclose the dangerous condition to the current owner and the owner did not know of the dangerous condition or realize the risk. (Opp. At 3:1-14 [citing Restatement Second of Torts § 353; Lewis v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690].)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GLEASON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Code, section 831.4, even if the bike lane was in a dangerous condition . . . as the bike lane constitutes a ‘trail’ within the meaning of Govt. Code, Section 831.4(b). . . . [¶] Plaintiff’s entire action is barred by Govt. Code, Section 831.4(b) as Plaintiff claims she was injured in a marked bike path on Santiago Canyon Road while riding her bicycle with a group of people, regardless of whether or not the bike path was in a dangerous condition at the time.” (Motion; 5:8-14.) Prokop v.

  • Hearing

CHRIS BORKOVEC VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Court notes, however, that Plaintiffs' supporting declarations assert "on information and belief" the existence of an unabated and dangerous condition for which SCE is responsible, and that assertion is the crux of their motion for severance. The basis for Plaintiffs' "information and belief" is not included in the declarations. The Court can disregard all hearsay statements in the briefing/declarations, or proceed to the merits of the motion.

  • Hearing

PRICE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO.

Plaintiffs must show that defendant had knowledge of the existence of the dangerous condition and that it acted with intent to injure decedent. Any amended complaint must be served and filed by December 4, 2020. Defendants' attorney is to submit a formal order that sets out verbatim the tentative ruling herein for all four matters and complies with California Rule of Court 3.1312 and is thereafter to prepare, file and serve notice of order. This is the Court's tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

NANCY RAUEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS K&K FOODS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 19, 2020, alleging three causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Willful Failure to Warn (Civil Code § 846); and (3) Dangerous Condition of Public Property. 5541 Rosemead Boulevard, LLC ("Rosemead") filed a Cross-Complaint on August 21, 2020 and a First Amended Cross-Complaint ("FXC") on September 30, 2020 against Aria Burger King, Inc. and Kaiser Sphere, alleging nine (9) causes of action sounding in (1) Express Indemnity; (2) Equitable Indemnity; (3) Comparative

  • Hearing

ALLENE ROSE VS BUSTAMANTE ENTERPRISES INC ET AL

, 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

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TAMIKO BROWNLEE VS MISSION CONTROL MEDIA INC ET AL

Public policy, however, “precludes landlord liability for a dangerous condition on the premises which came into existence after possession has passed to a tenant. [Citation.] This is based on the principle that the landlord has surrendered possession and control of the land to the tenant and has no right even to enter without permission.” (Garcia v. Holt (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 600, 604.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JEREMY M STAGE ET AL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants caused the dangerous condition – a dark intersection with inoperative or malfunctioning traffic control signals and streetlights. Plaintiffs allege as they were driving across the intersection of Walnut Grove and Broadway in the city of San Gabriel (“Subject Intersection”), another vehicle was driving through the Subject Intersection and crashed into Stage’s vehicle.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LINDA P. DONOFRIO VS 4045 VINLAND AVENUE PARTNERS,, ET AL.

Thus, on a negligence theory, the elements of a claim for injuries suffered by an invitee due to a dangerous condition on the premises (whether natural or artificial) are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (See Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1200, 1205 (Plaintiff shopper slipped on a puddle of milk on the floor of defendant store and suffered significant injuries to his knee.); Cf. also with Civ. Code §1714, subd.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

OSORIO VS VILLAREAL

The action for motor vehicle negligence, dangerous condition of public property, and premises liability was filed in January of 2020. Plaintiff Wesley Osorio, through his GAL, now seeks approval of a minor's compromise. The court has reviewed the papers. Wesley is now 6 years of age. 2. Applicable Standards. A. Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires court approval for the compromise or settlement of any minor's claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

OSORIO VS VILLAREAL

The action for motor vehicle negligence, dangerous condition of public property, and premises liability was filed in January of 2020. Plaintiff Wesley Osorio, through his GAL, now seeks approval of a minor's compromise. The court has reviewed the papers. Wesley is now 6 years of age. 2. Applicable Standards. A. Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires court approval for the compromise or settlement of any minor's claim.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RUBY FORD VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

of his employment created the dangerous condition; or [¶] (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition . . . a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAL VS. CANYON POINT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

[a/an] [fire hazard/specify other potentially dangerous condition] to [name of plaintiff]’s property;] 2.

  • Hearing

ACOSTA VS PRECISION METAL PRODUCTS INC

The initial plaintiffs alleged the defendants assigned, suffered and permitted decedent to operate their CEFF "high pressure hydraulic and pneumatic press used primarily for forging aerospace and aeronautical parts" "with the guard assembly apparatus in [a] compromised and dangerous condition, as they had a big order to complete."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DORA MONROY VS CITY OF BURBANK, ET AL.

“A plaintiff alleging injuries based on a dangerous condition must prove the defendant either: (1) created the dangerous condition, or (2) knew or should have known of the dangerous condition. (See Peralta v. Vons Companies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1036; see also Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.)

  • Hearing

CHRIS HAINES VS BRE DDR BR EASTLAND CA, LLC

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding Defendants Eastland’s and Walmart, Inc.’s notice of the dangerous condition is insufficient to show they knew of the dangerous condition or that they ignored the dangerous condition. Moreover, even if facts support Plaintiff’s notice allegations, notice that a painted arrow becomes slick when wet does not amount to despicable conduct.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CYNTHIA L CONNER, ET AL. VS LYFT, INC., ET AL.

., Kingsley Ofomata, Los Angeles World Airports Authority, Los Angeles Airport Police Division, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, and County of Los Angeles for negligence and dangerous condition on public property. On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed a FAC for (1) dangerous condition of public property, (2) general negligence, (3) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, (4) NIED, and (5) loss of consortium.

  • Hearing

ROCHEL MAGALNIC VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CARMEN TAYLOR-JONES, ET AL. VS JASMINE PIMENTEL, ET AL.

Statutory Liability/Dangerous Condition of Public Property Plaintiffs’ dangerous condition of public property cause of action is based on Government Code section 835, which extends liability to public entities, under certain conditions, for injuries on its property.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PAUL RAMAGLIA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL.

the Claim for Damages states, “The public entity was negligent and carelessly collided into our clients’ vehicle. The driver was in violation of California Vehicle Code, § 22350 and § 21800 .” RJN Ex. A at 2. Plaintiff did not plead any facts to suggest a dangerous condition of the public property caused or contributed to the accident. Cf. Elias, 68 Cal.

  • Hearing

BRUCE NUNEZ VS KEDREN COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER 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.”

  • Hearing

ROBERT KIRSCH, ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL.

“Read in its entirety, the dangerous condition alleged in the claim is known criminal activity, not inadequate lighting.” Id. at 890-891. In Donohue v. State of California, 178 Cal.App.3d 795 (1986), the plaintiff was injured when his car was struck by a car driven by a person taking the driving portion of his California driver license examination. Id. at 798.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 97     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.