JASON LINDO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Case Number: BC509835 Hearing Date: January 26, 2015 Dept: 97
THERE ARE TWO POSTINGS:
FIRST:

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

JASON LINDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: BC 509835
Hearing Date: January 26, 2015

DISCLOSURE BY THE COURT

Judge Beaudet hereby discloses that while running during the day light, she has tripped and fallen twice in two different locations where the sidewalk was uneven in her neighborhood. Neither instance appeared to involve tree roots, just old, broken up sidewalks. She reported one of the uneven sidewalk locations to the City of Los Angeles, but in neither case, did she call the police or paramedics at the time of the falls. Her injuries consisted of scrapes and bruises and she continued running. No claims were made by her. It has been quite a while since these falls occurred; Judge Beaudet estimates that it would be more than 5 years ago. Judge Beaudet does not believe that her experience will cause her to be biased for or against either party. Defendants Zohar and Alete Tsfira are ordered to serve a copy of this Disclosure when they serve the notice of the ruling on their motion for summary judgment that is being heard on this date, and Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Disclosure to any new party that is served hereafter in this case.

SECOND TENTATIVE ORDER

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

JASON LINDO,
Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: BC 509835

Hearing Date: January 26, 2015

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS ZOHAR TSFIRA AND ALETE TSFIRA

Facts Alleged
Plaintiff Jason Lindo (“Plaintiff”) alleges that while walking on a sidewalk at 4:00 a.m., he tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk. Plaintiff alleges that the sidewalk was uneven due to tree roots. Plaintiff alleges that it was dark at the time of his fall, and that the street lights were not working and/or were inadequate. (Complaint, paragraph 9.) Plaintiff alleges that the incident occurred on property maintained and/or controlled by Defendants Zohar Tsfira and Alete Tsfira (“Defendants”). (Complaint, paragraph 5.)
The Complaint contains causes of action for Negligence and Dangerous Condition of Public Property.

Discussion
A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating that one or more elements of a cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to a cause of action. CCP §437c(p)(2). In order to establish his Negligence cause of action, Plaintiff will need to prove (1) the existence of a legal duty to exercise care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) proximate cause; and (4) damages. Koepke v. Loo (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1448-1449. Here, Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s ability to establish the elements of breach of duty and causation.
DUTY
Defendants argue that the roadway, sidewalks and parkways are public property and the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, citing Los Angeles Municipal Code §62.00 and Streets & Highway Code §5600. Streets & Highways Code §5600 defines sidewalk to include a park or strip maintained in the area between the property line and the street line. Defendants present case law holding that in the absence of statute, the owner of land abutting a public sidewalk is not liable to persons injured as a result of defects in the sidewalk. (Selger v. Steven Brothers, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1585, 1589-1590; other cases cited in Defendants’ memorandum are omitted here.) Defendants also cite Jones v. Deeter (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798, 803, which contains an explanation of the Sidewalk Accidents Decisions Doctrine, a body of law holding that abutting land owners are not liable to pedestrians for defects in the sidewalk unless the owner creates the injurious condition.
Defendants present evidence establishing that they owned the property adjacent to the sidewalk where Plaintiff fell (FACT 2), but not the sidewalk itself (FACT 3). In support of these FACTS, Defendants offer as evidence their own Declarations (paragraphs 2 and 4) as well as the Declaration of a professional land surveyor, Russell Beck (“Beck”). The Beck Declaration contains evidence that the sidewalk at issue is located entirely within Edgemont Street and no portion of it is located on the property described in the Deed to Defendants’ property. (Beck Declaration, paragraphs 3-8.)
Defendants also present evidence demonstrating that they never caused any deviations, cracks or holes in the subject sidewalk, nor did they alter, repair or do any work on the sidewalk; they also present evidence that the tree which Plaintiff claims is the source of the uplifted sidewalk does not belong to them, and that they have not done anything to maintain the tree which is located in the sidewalk in front of their property. (FACTS 5-11; Defendants’ Declarations, paragraphs 3, 5, 7-9; Declaration of Leon Zoltzman, the employee of Defendants’ property manager, paragraphs 1-3, 7-9.) Additionally, Defendants present evidence that the nearby light pole is not owned by them nor are they responsible for it. (Defendants’ Declarations, paragraphs 12-13.)
Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion or to offer any contrary evidence. Based on the legal authority cited and the undisputed facts presented, Defendants have established that Plaintiff will be unable to establish that Defendants breached any duty owed to him.
CAUSATION
Defendants argue that Plaintiff will be unable to establish the element of causation because his discovery responses on this issue are factually devoid. (FACT 15.) Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory no. 17.1 does not contain facts to support his denial of Requests for Admission asking him to admit that no act by Defendants was a substantial factor in causing the accident. (Declaration of Dennis Alexander, paragraphs 4-5, Exhibits C-F; Requests for Admission nos. 3 and 4 and Plaintiff’s responses thereto, Form Interrogatory no. 17.1 and Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatory no. 17.1 that correlate to Requests for Admission nos. 3 and 4.) Plaintiff has not opposed this part of the motion or offered any contrary evidence.

Conclusion and Order
Based upon the undisputed evidence, Plaintiff will be unable to establish the elements of breach of duty or causation. Summary judgment is therefore granted in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Defendants are ordered to lodge with the Court and serve on Plaintiff a proposed judgment within twenty days and to provide notice of this order.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *