Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV05687, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05687    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

This case arises out of an incident that took place on June 26, 2021, in which plaintiff Giancarlo Bermudez ("Plaintiff") allegedly tripped on the public sidewalk in front of the residential property owned by defendants Jacquelyn David and George Mossman as trustees of the David-Mossman Trust ("Defendants"), located at 15752 Ararat Street, Sylmar, California 91342. Defendants allege that they did not control the subject location and did not cause the subject uplift and now move the Court for summary judgment based on the sidewalk accident decisions doctrine.

Legal Standard

In reviewing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”¿(Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

“[T]he initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facia showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”¿(Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)¿A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)¿If the moving party fails to carry its burden, the inquiry is over, and the motion must be denied. (See Id.; see also Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)¿Even if the moving party does carry its burden, the non-moving party will still defeat the motion by presenting evidence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849-50.)

To meet this burden of showing a cause of action cannot be established, a defendant must show not only “that the plaintiff does not possess needed evidence” but also that “the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.”¿(Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 854.)¿It is insufficient for the defendant to merely point out the absence of evidence.¿(Gaggero v. Yura (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 884, 891.)¿The defendant “must also produce evidence that the plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support his or her claim.”¿(Ibid.)¿The supporting evidence can be in the form of affidavits, declarations, admissions, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.¿(Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)

“Once the defendant … has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff … to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) The plaintiff may not merely rely on allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, but instead, “shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action.”¿(Ibid.)¿“If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”¿(Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

The court must “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party,” including “all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.” (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1037; Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 844-45.) “On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues. [Citation.] Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law.  If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.” (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839.) Further, “the trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true. [Citation.] Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court’s evaluation of credibility. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 840; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].) 

Sidewalk Accident Decisions Doctrine

Defendants rely on the “Sidewalk Accident Decisions” doctrine (the “sidewalk doctrine”), which governs property¿adjacent to¿a sidewalk. The sidewalk doctrine is based on case law explaining that sidewalks are public and thus¿adjacent landowners owe¿no duty to users of the sidewalk unless¿that¿property owner created the hazardous condition. Streets and Highways Code §5610 provides that owners of lots fronting on a public street shall¿maintain¿any¿sidewalk in a condition that will not endanger persons and not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works.¿¿Pursuant to¿Jones v. Deeter¿(1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798, 803, the duty imposed by this ordinance is owed to the city and not to persons using the sidewalk. “Under section 5610 the abutting owner bears the duty to repair defects in the sidewalk, regardless of whether he has created these defects. It was felt, however, that it would be unfair for such an owner to be held liable to travelers injured¿as a¿result of¿sidewalk defects which were not of the owner’s making. Thus, the ‘Sidewalk Accident Decisions’¿doctrine arose; this doctrine holds that the abutting property owner is not liable in tort to travelers injured on the sidewalk unless the owner somehow creates the injurious sidewalk condition.” (Deeter, 152 Cal.App.3d at 803.)

While generally a landowner is not liable for harm resulting from conditions or activities outside his property, on adjoining land or on the highway, street, or sidewalk, the landowner may be liable if the landowner created the defect or exercised dominion or control over the adjoining land (Jordan v. City of Sacramento¿(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1490-1491;¿Corcoran v. San Mateo¿(1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 355, 359;¿Schaefer v. Lenahan¿(1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 324, 326.)¿In settings where the abutting owners exercised control over the property such as by planting trees or habitually trimming or caring for them, these abutting owners have the duty to¿maintain¿the trees in a safe condition to make sure the roots do not cause a tripping hazard. (Alcaraz v. Vece¿(1997)¿14 Cal.4^th¿1149,¿1162.)

Furthermore, “a defendant need not own, possess and control property in order to be held liable; control alone is sufficient.” (Id.) A¿person¿is required to¿maintain¿“land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition.” (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center¿(1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674.)¿¿In¿Alcaraz, the court held that because the defendant¿maintained¿the lawn surrounding the meter box, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the defendant exercised control over that strip of land and had a duty to warn others of the hazardous condition of the meter box.¿(Alcaraz v. Vece, 14 Cal.4^th¿at 1162.) 

Undisputed Facts

·        On June 26, 2021, Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on the sidewalk surface while walking at or near 15752 Ararat St., Sylmar, CA 91342.

·        Defendants Jacquelyn David and George Mossman, trustees of the David-Mossman Trust, were the owners of the property abutting the subject sidewalk at the time of the alleged incident.

·        The City of Los Angeles owned the subject sidewalk.

·        The dangerous condition which allegedly caused Plaintiff to trip and fall on the sidewalk surface while walking was an uplifted sidewalk.

·        The subject sidewalk is a public sidewalk.

·        The sidewalk uplift was caused by a jacaranda tree maintained and under the control of the City.

·        The City was fully aware that roots of jacaranda trees expand out and potentially uplift sidewalks.

·        The City never gave notice to Defendants to repair the subject tree or the subject sidewalk.

Discussion

The subject sidewalk is a public sidewalk. Defendants did not control the subject sidewalk or cause the subject uplift. Defendant City of Los Angeles owned, managed, maintained, and inspected the subject sidewalk surface. (Complaint ¶9; RJN, Exhibit “1.”) The City has control over the tree that caused the sidewalk uplift. (LAMC §62.105; RJN, Exhibit “6.”; LAMC §62.104; RJN, Exhibit “7.”) It is the City’s responsibility for control of any maintenance of the tree. (Candlish Depo. at 21:19-23, Exhibit “H.”) Accordingly, Defendants have met their initial burden to establish no liability for the uplifted sidewalk.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants, as owners of the property abutting the sidewalk, had a duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition under Los Angeles Municipal Code section 62.104(b) and California Streets and Highways Code section 5610. (PUMF 6, 8.) Plaintiff contends these provisions impose a duty on property owners to maintain adjacent sidewalks in a condition that does not endanger pedestrians. (PUMF 9.) Plaintiff further claims that Defendants failed to remedy the condition despite their awareness, citing George Mossman’s admission that he observed the uplift five to ten years ago but took no action to repair or report it. (PUMF 50, 51.)

However, Plaintiff misapplies the applicable legal standard. The Sidewalk Accident Decisions doctrine establishes that an abutting property owner is not liable in tort to pedestrians injured on a public sidewalk unless the owner affirmatively created the dangerous condition. (Deeter v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 764, 803.)  No evidence demonstrates that Defendants affirmatively created the sidewalk uplift here.

Plaintiff further argues that Defendants’ knowledge of the condition should have prompted them to inspect the sidewalk regularly and undertake repairs, pointing to George Mossman’s testimony that he observed the uplift years prior and Jacquelyn David’s claim of contacting the City over ten times since 1993. (PUMF 49, 50, 51.) However, under the Sidewalk Accident Decisions doctrine, there is no duty to repair the sidewalk, to inspect it, or to notify the City unless Defendant exercised control over the sidewalk or caused the uplift in question. Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to either control or causation. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar. 

__________________________ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Judge of the Superior Court