Defendant City And County Of San Francisco'S Motion For Summary Judgment (Part 2 Of Tentative Ruling)
Set for hearing on Friday, February 7, 2014, Line 5, Defendant City And County Of San Francisco'S Motion For Summary Judgment (PART 2 OF 2).
The Declaration of Jeff Mastin, Plaintiff's expert, lacks foundation (Evid. Code sec. 403), is an unqualified expert opinion (Evid. Code sec. 720), and is based on improper matter (Evid. Code sec. 804) as to when the breaking of the bricks occurred. "[I]n determining constructive notice, the method of inspection is secondary; the primary and indispensable element of constructive notice is a showing that the condition existed before the accident?[there must be sufficient evidence to show whether] the condition has existed long enough that it may be inferred that a reasonable inspection would have ascertained its existence." (Strongman v. County of Kern (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 308, 313.) Further, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing actu
Hearing Date
February 07, 2014
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant City And County Of San Francisco'S Motion For Summary Judgment (Part 2 Of Tentative Ruling)
Set for hearing on Friday, February 7, 2014, Line 5, Defendant City And County Of San Francisco'S Motion For Summary Judgment (PART 2 OF 2).
The Declaration of Jeff Mastin, Plaintiff's expert, lacks foundation (Evid. Code sec. 403), is an unqualified expert opinion (Evid. Code sec. 720), and is based on improper matter (Evid. Code sec. 804) as to when the breaking of the bricks occurred. "[I]n determining constructive notice, the method of inspection is secondary; the primary and indispensable element of constructive notice is a showing that the condition existed before the accident?[there must be sufficient evidence to show whether] the condition has existed long enough that it may be inferred that a reasonable inspection would have ascertained its existence." (Strongman v. County of Kern (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 308, 313.) Further, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing actu