Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Personal Injury Law Blogs -> Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Personal Injury Law
: Sacramento Injury Lawyer BlogSacramento Mall Owner Responsible For Sidewalk Trip And Fall, Part 3 of 9
By Moseley Collins, Esq.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this trip and fall/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Universal Mall argues that its summary judgment motion should be granted because Plaintiff cannot prove that it owed a duty of care toward her, because the sidewalk defect which caused her to trip and fall was "trivial in nature." In support of that assertion, it contends that a one-half inch rise in the sidewalk is a trivial defect; and that as such, it did not owe a duty to the Plaintiff to either cure the defect or warn her of its existence.
One of the problems associated with Defendant's argument is its description of the defective condition of the sidewalk. It argues that the defect was solely a one-half inch difference between the heights of the pavers (sections) of the sidewalk. That is not true. The defects consisted of a 1" rise in height, and an approximate 1" gap? between the pavers on the sidewalk (Supported by the Declarations of Judy Brown, Paragraphs 5-6 and Kenneth Brown, Paragraph 8; see also the photo exhibits which show the rise in height and the gap, attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to Declarations of Judy Brown and Kenneth Brown).
Defendant Universal Mall argues that a one half inch rise in the paver on the sidewalk is so trivial that reasonable minds would not differ as to this being only a trivial defect. As explained above, the defects were a 1" gap and a 1" rise in height of the sidewalk paver. Defendant omits any reference to the gap in the pavers, choosing, rather, to describe the defect as only an upraised portion of sidewalk. Further, and importantly, whether the defects were trivial or substantial in nature in one which a jury can decide in this case. As held in Johnson v. City of Palo Alto (1962) 199 Cal.App2d 148, 152, 18 Cal Rptr, 484, it is up to a jury to decide whether or not the condition of a sidewalk is dangerous or defective, or merely trivial.
Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on May 02, 2010 (boomark / email).
Laurin Maritime et al
Class Action Launched Against Companies Responsible for Mississippi Oil Spill
OfficeMax Recalls Office Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
OfficeMax Recalls Office Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
Baby Jogger Recalls Strollers Due to Fall Hazard
Baby Jogger Recalls Strollers Due to Fall Hazard
Trampolines
Recalled due to Fall Hazard
Outdoor Playset Gliders
Recalled due to Fall Hazard
Gothic Cabinet Bunk Beds
Recalled due to Fall Hazard

Man dies from fall off mall escalator www.privateofficer.com
Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (Cal. Ct. App. - June 30, 2008)
Mother goes on shoplifting spree with 3 children www.privateofficer.com
Two nabbed in stolen car after chase www.privateofficer.com
The Anatomy of a Slip and Fall / Trip and Fall Case in Plain Language!







