Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV00544, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV00544, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00544 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Swarm v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 23SMCV00544

Hearing Date February 23, 2024

Defendant Martin’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Swarm tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk. She sued the City and County of Los Angeles and Martin, whose home is adjacent to the sidewalk. Defendant Martin moves for summary judgment, arguing she has no duty to maintain the sidewalk, nor did she cause the condition.

Evidentiary Objections: Martin’s objections OVERRULED.

Under the “Sidewalk Accident Decision Doctrine,” a landowner’s duty to repair and maintain an adjoining sidewalk is not owed to persons who use the sidewalk, unless the landowner causes the sidewalk’s dangerous condition. Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Assoc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1320, fn. 11. A property owner can be liable for “suffering the roots of his tree to cause, with his knowledge, a dangerous condition on an adjacent public sidewalk.” Moeller v. Fleming (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 241, 245.

Martin never reconstructed any portion of the sidewalk or hired anyone to do so. Martin’s Separate Statement (MSS) 18-19, Martin decl. ¶¶6-7. She did not place patches of asphalt or direct anyone to do so and never made alterations to the sidewalk. MSS 20-22, Martin decl. ¶¶8-10. She does not own the land the sidewalk sits on. See maps from LA County Assessor’s Office and Bureau of Engineering. MSS 40, Karayan decl. ¶¶12-13, exh. M-N. This is sufficient to meet defendant’s initial burden, which shifts to the opposing party to show a triable issue of fact.

In opposition, the City argues the sidewalk’s uplift condition was caused by the roots of a tree on Martin’s property. They argue Martin was aware of the issue from 2019 at the latest but took no action to remedy the condition. They argue this shows a triable issue of fact as to whether Martin caused the condition by failing to maintain trees on her property. The City presents the declaration of Guy Stivers, landscape architect and certified arborist, who inspected the property and opined the uplift was caused by roots from an Italian stone pine on Martin’s property. Stivers decl. ¶16.

Martin argues Stivers’ declaration is inadmissible as speculative and lacking a sufficient basis. Stivers visited the property, noted the presence of an Italian stone pine, followed the roots of the tree to the location where plaintiff tripped and concluded, based on his expertise and observations, that the sidewalk uplift was caused by Martin’s tree roots. Stivers decl. ¶¶6-16.

This raises a triable issue of fact as to whether Martin’s tree roots caused the sidewalk uplift, which, under Moeller, could make Martin liable to plaintiff. DENIED.