Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 21-01234560, Date: 2023-07-31 Tentative Ruling
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication – GRANTED
The Motion by Defendant City of Rancho Santa Margarita (“Defendant”) for Summary judgment on the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Tammy Sue Benjamin (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED.
“[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question.” (Id. at p. 851.) A defendant moving for summary judgment satisfies his or her initial burden by showing 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).) The scope of this burden is determined by the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint. (FPI Development v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382 [pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion]; 580 Folsom Associates v. Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1, 18-19 [defendant only required to defeat allegations reasonably contained in the complaint].)
A cause of action cannot be established if the undisputed facts presented by the defendant prove the contrary of the plaintiff’s allegations as a matter of law. (Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597.) Alternatively, a moving defendant can show that a cause of action cannot be established by submitting evidence, such as discovery admissions and responses, that plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence to establish an essential element of his cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 854-855; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590 [finding moving defendant may show plaintiff’s lack of evidence by factually devoid discovery responses after plaintiff has had adequate opportunity for discovery]; see Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 80-81 [finding Union Bank rule only applies where discovery requests are broad enough to elicit all such information].) Once a defendant meets its prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show by reference to specific facts the existence of a triable issue as to that affirmative defense or cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.)
Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that she tripped on a raised crack of sidewalk while walking at or about 22112 El Paseo Rancho, Santa Margarita, California. She asserts two causes of action, for general negligence and premises liability.
Defendant argues the defect in the sidewalk was trivial as a matter of law and it therefore is not liable to Plaintiff for negligence or premises liability.
"The law imposes no duty on a landowner including a public entity-to repair trivial defects, or to maintain [its property] in an absolutely perfect condition. A property owner is not liable for damages caused by a minor, trivial or insignificant defect in property. Some defects are bound to exist even in the exercise of reasonable care in the maintenance of property and cannot reasonably be expected to cause accidents." (Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 566 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).)
In this matter, Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell on a raised portion of the sidewalk that was owned, maintained, controlled by the Defendant. (UMF 2-3.) At the time of Plaintiff’s fall, it was night, but the area of the sidewalk was lit by light posts. (UMF 5.) Plaintiff’s view of the sidewalk was not obstructed. (UMF 6.) There were no objects or debris covering the sidewalk, nor was there any liquid present on the sidewalk. (UMF 7-8.) Just prior to Plaintiff’s fall, there was nothing impeding Plaintiff’s path of travel. (UMF 9.) The vertical displacement of the uneven sidewalk at the subject location was no greater than 1 ¼ inches at any point. (UMF 11.)
Plaintiff purports to dispute certain of Defendant’s facts, but she does not cite to any evidence in her separate statement. (See CRC, Rule 3.1350(f)(2)(“An opposing party who contends that a fact is disputed must state, on the right side of the page directly opposite the fact in dispute, the nature of the dispute and describe the evidence that supports the position that the fact is controverted.”)) Nor does Plaintiff submit any evidence with her opposition.
With its moving papers, Defendant submits Plaintiff’s responses to its requests for admission, Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, and a Declaration from Diego Chavez, Defendant’s Human Resources and Risk Management Advisor. Among other things, Mr. Chavez states that shortly after the incident, he personally observed the condition of the sidewalk where Plaintiff fell and measured it; his measurements showed a change in elevation between 1 inch and 1-¼ inch. (Chavez Decl., ¶¶ 4, 8.)
In Huckey v. City of Temecula (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1092, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment based on the trivial defect doctrine against a pedestrian who, like Plaintiff here, sued a city for injuries he sustained from tripping and falling on an allegedly defective city sidewalk. The sidewalk in question had a height differential of 9/16 inch on one end and 1 7/32 inches on the other side. (Id. at 1095-1096.)
In analyzing whether a walkway defect is trivial – which is a matter of law – a court must first “review[] evidence regarding type and size of the defect. If that preliminary analysis reveals a trivial defect, the court considers evidence of any additional factors [bearing on whether the defect presented a substantial risk of injury]. If these additional factors do not indicate the defect was sufficiently dangerous to a reasonably careful person, the court should deem the defect trivial as a matter of law ....” (Id. at 1105.)
“Sidewalk elevations ranging from three-quarters of an inch to one and one-half inches have generally been held trivial as a matter of law.” (Id. at 1107.) After such a showing is made, the court is to consider “whether there existed any circumstances surrounding the accident which might have rendered the defect more dangerous than its mere abstract depth would indicate.” (Fielder v. City of Glendale (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 719, 734.)
Here, Defendant meets its burden to show the defect is trivial, with evidence that the sidewalk elevation differential was no more than 1-¼ inches. Defendant also presents evidence that there were no other contributing factors, such as debris, lack of lighting, etc. – at the time of the incident. (See Huckey, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at 1105.)
Plaintiff purports to dispute Defendant’s alleged facts, arguing that the height of the sidewalk differential was more than 1-¼ inches, there were broken concrete edges at the location, there was dirt and debris present that obscured Plaintiff’s view, and the light from the streetlamp was not sufficient to mitigate the danger. But Plaintiff has not proffered any evidence to support these arguments. Thus, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden.
As a result, summary judgment is appropriate. The Court finds there are no triable issues of material fact as to Defendant’s negligence given that the undisputed evidence shows the sidewalk defect was trivial and there were no additional factors presenting an unreasonable danger.
Plaintiff’s request for a continuance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h) is denied. Plaintiff fails to explain how any additional discovery is likely to lead to facts essential to support her opposition, and thus does not meet her burden under section 437c(h). (See Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 307, 325-326.)
Defendant is ordered to file and serve a proposed form of Judgment within 7 days.
Defendant also is ordered to give notice.