2012-00121482-CU-PO

Judith Peterson vs. City Of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer

Filed By: Rushford, James W.

Defendant City of Sacramento’s Demurrer to the 2nd Amended Complaint is sustained
with leave to amend for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for personal injuries sounds in negligence.
Plaintiff Peterson alleges that on June 4, 2011, she was walking on the sidewalk on K
street, near the Esquire Grill. In front of the Esquire Grill, the sidewalk changes from a
paved sidewalk to a smooth, shiny, decorative surface. As Ms. Peterson stepped onto
the decorative surface, her right foot immediately slipped out from under her causing
her to fall with great force causing great bodily injury and trauma, including a broken
ankle. (SAC Complaint paras. 4-7.)

The second cause of action is denominated Dangerous Condition of Public Property
and Negligence of government employees under Government Code sections 815.2
and 835. Plaintiff has alleged no facts to support the conclusion that the property was
public property or that it was a dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiff also
alleges in a conclusionary manner that the City is liable because plaintiff’s injury was
caused by an act of omission of its employees, however no supporting facts are
alleged as to any role a city employee would have on property alleged to be owned by
co-defendants.

Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to allege a dangerous condition of public property,
or that City had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition of a dangerous
condition of public property. Plaintiff specifically alleges that the incident occurred on
the sidewalk that is part of the premises of the Esquire Grill, owned only by co-
defendants. Plaintiff does not allege that the incident occurred on public property, but
rather “in front of The Esquire Grill.” (See SAC 4 – 7)

Governmental liability for dangerous conditions on public property is imposed by
Government Code section 835. To state a cause of action against a public entity under
Section 835, a plaintiff must plead: (1) a dangerous condition existed on the public
property at the time of the injury; (2) the condition proximately caused the injury; (3)
the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained; and
(4) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the
property in sufficient time to have taken measures to protect against it. (Section 835;
Vedder v. County of Imperial, (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 654). Government Code section
830 defines a “dangerous condition as a “condition of property that creates a
substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when
such property is used with due care in the manner in which it is foreseeable that it will
be used.”

Plaintiff may file and serve a 3rd amended complaint on or before October 15, 2013.
Response to be filed and served within 10 days of service of the amended complaint,
15 days if served by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.