Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV08133, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08133    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed this premises liability action arising out of a September 29, 2021 incident in which he was walking and caught his foot on an uplifted portion of the sidewalk in front of 4312 Eagle Rock Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Defendant Eagle Rock LA Ventures, LLC, the adjacent landowner, now moves the Court for summary judgment under the sidewalk accident decisions doctrine, asserting that it did not own or control the sidewalk at issue and did not cause the uplift. Trial is currently set for July 16, 2025.

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.) 

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.)

Discussion

Defendant introduced evidence that the uplift at issue was caused by root growth from a tree located next to the uplift. Defendant does not own the sidewalk or the tree that caused the uplift. (UMF 3, 4, 5, 6.) Defendant does not control or maintain the sidewalk, nor did Defendant plant or maintain the tree at issue. (UMF 6.) Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant does not own, maintain, or control the sidewalk or the tree.

However, 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. Plaintiff contends these provisions impose a duty on property owners to maintain adjacent sidewalks in a condition that does not endanger pedestrians.

However, Plaintiff misapplies the applicable legal standard. The Sidewalk Accident Decisions doctrine specifically addresses Streets and Highways Code §5610 and 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.)   

Furthermore, a municipality may alter these principles by ordinance with clear and unambiguous language imposing liability on a property owner for sidewalk injuries. (Jordan v. City of Sacramento (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1491.) However, nothing in Los Angeles Municipal Code section 62.104(b) imposes liability on a property owner for sidewalk injuries. 

Therefore, Defendant is not liable under the sidewalk accident decisions doctrine unless Plaintiff can present evidence raising a triable issue of fact that Defendant owned or controlled the subject tree or sidewalk, or caused the condition at issue. Plaintiff has not done so. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment 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.