Anguiano v. City of Manteca

• Decision Date: 12 January 2023
• Docket Number: C091966
• Parties: DELIA ANGUIANO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF MANTECA, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

DELIA ANGUIANO, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MANTECA, Defendant and Respondent.

C091966

California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin

January 12, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Super. Ct. No. STK-CV-UPI-2017-0002927)

HULL, ACTING P. J.

SUMMARY OF THE APPEAL

Plaintiff Delia Anguiano brought a personal injury action against defendant City of Manteca (City) after she tripped and fell on a rise in a sidewalk. The City brought a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on the bases that (1) the defect in the sidewalk on which Anguiano tripped was trivial as a matter of law and Anguiano lacked evidence to show it was obviously dangerous; and (2) there was no evidence that the City had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerousness of

1

the sidewalk, which the City would need to have in order for liability to attach to the City.

On appeal, Anguiano takes issue with the trial court's conclusion that the defect at issue was trivial. Anguiano weaves into her analysis arguments regarding whether the condition was obvious, which are more aptly relevant to the issue of whether the City had constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous nature of the sidewalk's condition. (See Gov. Code, § 835.2 [constructive notice requires the condition to be "of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character"]; Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 508, 520 ["A defect is not obvious just because it is nontrivial"].)

In its responding brief, the City argues the defect was trivial as a matter of law; Anguiano failed to properly address the trial court's finding that the City lacked notice of the allegedly dangerous condition and this court should not now review the issue; and the City had neither actual nor constructive notice of the existence of a dangerous defect. The City also argues we should not be able to consider this appeal because it was untimely, and it asks us to reconsider an evidentiary ruling made by the trial court if we are inclined to reverse the judgment.

Because we will affirm the judgment on the basis that the defect at issue was trivial as a matter of law, we need not consider the question of whether the City had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition or the City's request to reconsider evidentiary rulings. We will, however, briefly consider the City's argument that the appeal was untimely.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Pleadings

Anguiano filed the First Amended Complaint (complaint) which is the operative complaint in this action, on May 8, 2017. The complaint alleged a single personal injury

2

cause of action against the City for premises liability. Plaintiff alleged she was injured because of a dangerous condition of public property and the City had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition with sufficient time prior to the injury to have corrected the condition. Specifically, Anguiano alleged that on June 7, 2016, she was seriously injured when she tripped on a raised sidewalk crack in the 1300 block of West Yosemite Avenue in Manteca then fell to the ground. Anguiano sought compensatory damages for lost wages, medical expenses, general damages, and loss of earnings. The City answered the complaint on June 7, 2017.

Motion for Summary Judgment

In January 2019, the City filed a motion for summary judgment arguing it was entitled to summary judgment for two reasons. First, the City argued that the undisputed material facts established that the sidewalk condition upon which Anguiano tripped and fell was not dangerous as a matter of law. Second, the City argued that Anguiano could not establish that the City had sufficient advanced actual or constructive knowledge of the allegedly dangerous property condition to have been able to take steps to remedy the condition prior to Anguiano's fall. The hearing on the motion was continued twice to allow the parties to engage in further discovery.

City's Evidence Submitted with the Moving Papers

The City included portions of Anguiano's deposition testimony with its moving papers. In her deposition, Anguiano described the weather on the day of the incident as "clear" and "nice." She testified that she did not see an uplifted section of sidewalk prior to her fall. She described the fall by saying, "when I walked out of the check cashing place, I just walked off to the sidewalk and [the] next thing I know I was on the ground." She fell forward, and when she looked back to where she had tripped, she saw the raised edge of the sidewalk. During her deposition, she stated she never measured the height of the edge where she tripped and admitted she did not know how high it was.

3

In the responses to special interrogatories submitted with the moving papers, Anguiano contended the sidewalk was in a dangerous condition "based upon the height differential in the sidewalk panels at the property where she was injured, and the substantial damage[s] and cracks to the sidewalk at the property where she was injured."

The City submitted the declaration of its finance director, Jeri Tejeda, in support of the motion. He declared that the City's risk management department maintains an electronic access log that documents every citizen complaint and claim made with the City dating back to 2004. He said he personally reviewed the log and, other than Anguiano's claim, located no other claims or complaints regarding the sidewalk condition on the 1300 block of West Yosemite Avenue. He also stated, "I am unaware of any complaints, claims or injuries involving any sidewalk condition on the 1300 block of West Yosemite Avenue from the City's annual inspections prior to Delia Anguiano's fall."

Plaintiff's Opposition Evidence

In her initial response to the motion, Anguiano did not dispute that the day of her accident was a clear and nice day.

Anguiano submitted portions of her deposition testimony with her opposition papers. She testified about a copy of a photograph she submitted with her claim to the City. She could not approximate when she took the photo. On the photo, she marked approximately 15 feet from the door of the check-cashing store and four feet from the curb, which is where she estimated she fell. The photograph is not a close-up, and does not provide a good visual of the condition of the sidewalk in the approximate area where Anguiano alleges she fell, but based on what can be seen, it looks like she has estimated that she tripped and fell on the transition between two panels on the left half of the sidewalk, with the check-cashing store to her left and the curb and a tree to her right. Her car was parked further along the sidewalk, some distance beyond the tree.

4

Anguiano submitted portions of the deposition of Lucky Shaw, who appears to be a City employee. He stated he and one of his crew members went out to inspect the area the day they received notice of Anguiano's fall, and the next day he sent a crew out to ramp and grind the area.

During his deposition, Shaw reviewed a series of six photographs. One photograph, taken on September 27, 2016, shows a photo of the sidewalk and check cashing store located at 1330 West Yosemite. He describes the sidewalk as "broken and raised" and agrees that it is "broken in several locations." He described a photograph including a level and tape measure as showing the transition of the raised sidewalk. He took the measurements. He estimates the height differential shown in one photograph is one and 3/4 inches (1 3/4"). He estimates other measurements reflected in the series of photos were one inch (1"), and between 1 inch (1") and one and 1/4 inches (11/4").

Looking at the series of photographs used during Shaw's deposition-and comparing it to Anguiano's marked photograph and deposition testimony regarding where she fell-it appears that the general area around where Anguiano fell was two sidewalk panels wide. Treating the side of the sidewalk where the check cashing business was located as the left side, the curb as the right side, and the area a panel would cover as a section, the two lower sections and upper-left section were concrete slabs, and the upper-right section was a dirt well where a tree grew. The upper-left panel and the lower-right panel have both been pushed up so they are raised above the lower-left panel. The height difference between the two left panels, where Anguiano's marked photograph suggests she fell is at an incline, with the difference being approximately one inch (1") at the left edge and approximately one and three-quarter inches at the right edge (1 3/4"). There was a crack in the lower-right panel, running from approximately the middle of the top edge to the panel's bottom left-hand corner. Viewed in conjunction with the photograph Anguiano submitted with her claim, these photographs show that to the extent there are broken and raised panels along the block, they are panels immediately

5

abutting the tree. The path of the panels on the left side appears to be fairly smooth, with only the rise between the two panels where Anguiano appears to have tripped-i.e., there are no cracks with jagged edges or broken panels in the footpath from the front of the check cashing store to the panels where Anguiano represented she fell.

Shaw also testified a bit about Government Outreach, a computer-based application the City uses to file complaints and concerns. It is a website that citizens can access to file complaints; so if a citizen has a complaint regarding sidewalks, they can go to the website and file a complaint and the complaint will be forwarded to him.

Anguiano also submitted portions of the deposition of Tejeda. He testified about the City's log that tracked claims filed against the City. He testified the log would only keep track of formal claims...