Case Number: PC054213    Hearing Date: September 02, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

JENNIFER SCHUPBACH,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
ELVIA BACA, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: PC054213

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #35
September 2, 2014

Plaintiff, Jennifer Schupbach filed this action against Defendants, Elvia Baca and the City of Los Angeles for damages arising out of a trip and fall on an allegedly uneven sidewalk. At this time, Baca moves for summary judgment, contending she does not maintain or control the sidewalk in front of her property, and therefore does not bear liability for the subject accident.

The “Sidewalk Accident Decisions” 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. When the defect in the sidewalk is somehow attributable to the abutting property owner, the sidewalk accident decisions doctrine does not apply. This rule has been held to impose liability on abutting property owners where the owner left some dangerous or slippery material on the sidewalk and a traveler tripped on this material (Kopfinger v. Grand Central Public Market (1964) 60 Cal.2d 852, 858-860), where the owner altered or constructed the sidewalk for his own benefit and the traveler slipped on the part of sidewalk so altered or constructed by the owner (Sexton v. Brooks (1952) 39 Cal.2d 153, 157), or where the plaintiff fell on a break in the sidewalk allegedly caused by the roots of a tree located in defendant’s front yard (Moeller v. Fleming (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 241, 245). However, where the disruptive roots extend from a tree located in the parkway in front of the defendant’s property, the unsafe condition was deemed attributable to the City, not to the defendant property owner. (Jones v. Deeter (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798, 803-804.)

Baca provides evidence that she did not maintain, alter, or exercise control over the subject sidewalk. See separate statement, fact 9, and Plaintiff’s declaration, ¶8. Baca therefore met her initial burden to establish she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 8/19/14. As of 8/27/14, the Court has not received any opposition to the motion. The motion is therefore granted.

Dated this 2nd day of September, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court