Holder v. City of Santa Ana

• Decision Date: 27 June 1962
• Citation: 205 Cal.App.2d 194,22 Cal.Rptr. 707
• Parties: Dean Wayne HOLDER, by his Guardian ad Litem, Nordine C. Holder, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA ANA, a Municipal corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 6837.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 707

22 Cal.Rptr. 707

205 Cal.App.2d 194

Dean Wayne HOLDER, by his Guardian ad Litem, Nordine C. Holder, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA ANA, a Municipal corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 6837.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

June 27, 1962.

Hearing Denied Aug. 22, 1962.

M. A. Sturges, Newport Beach, for appellant.

Jacobs, Jacobs, Nelson & Witmer, Santa Ana, for respondent.

COUGHLIN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal, entered after order sustaining a general demurrer to a third amended complaint without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, appellant herein, at the time of the incident under consideration, was six years of age; climbed a tree in a park mantained by the defendant, the City of Santa Ana, the respondent herein; fell from the tree; was injured when he struck the side of an unfilled sandbox located beneath it; and, through his guardian ad litem, brought this action to recover damages, claiming a right thereto under the provisions of the Public Liability Act, i. e., Government Code, section 53051. The issues presented for determination concern the sufficiency of the third amended complaint to state a cause of action. Three previous complaints had been filed; general demurrers thereto had been sustained; and orders granting permission to file amended pleadings had been made. The instant complaint alleges that in the subject park the City maintained a live pepper tree, 15 feet in height, of a limb configuration and with branches low enough to the ground to permit and constitute an invitation to a six year old child to climb the same; that the City 'at all times' had knowledge of the foregoing facts and was aware that 'small children did climb and play on and in the branches of said tree'; that the City caused a sandbox frame 'to be constructed and maintained in a position directly adjacent to and partially extending under the limbs of said pepper tree'; that on September 13, 1958 this frame contained only a few inches of sand and as a result thereof the sides thereof extended about 8 inches above the surface; that on said date the plaintiff was playing in the branches of the pepper tree and 'for reasons unknown to him', fell therefrom and onto the sandbox frame, as a result of which he sustained multiple fractures of the left arm and elbow. It also is alleged that the City knew that 'small children are prone to fall from branches of trees', and that a fall by a child therefrom onto the bare ground or onto a sand pile would not result in serious injury; that the maintenance of the unfilled sandbox in question constituted a hazard which could have been remedied by filling the box with sand or removing it from underneath the tree; and that the City was guilty of negligence in that, (1) it failed to maintain supervisory personnel at the park, (2) the playground was unfenced, which constituted and invitation to children to use its facilities and play in the subject pepper tree, (3) placement of the sandbox frame under the tree constituted a hazard or trap to any child who might fall upon it, (4) in failing to fill the sandbox there 'resulted a dangerous and defective condition in said apparatus which could (and did) cause serious injuries to children of immature years' and, (5) the City should have removed the sandbox from under the tree.

The City's liability in the premises, if any, as imposed by Section 53051 of the Government Code ¹; is not based on common law principles of negligence; and resulted only if the condition of its property, as described in the complaint, was dangerous or defective within the meaning of the aforesaid Government Code section. (Seybert v. County of Imperial, 162 Cal.App.2d 209, 212, 327 P.2d 560; Farrell v. City of Long Beach, 132 Cal.App.2d 818, 283 P.2d 296; Schmidt v. City of Vallejo, 122 Cal.App. 5, 7, 10 P.2d 107.) Therefore, the only legal issue presented on appeal is whether the complaint in question states facts from which it may be concluded that the subject pepper tree and sandbox, under the circumstances alleged, constituted a dangerous or defective condition which proximately caused the injuries sustained by the plaintiff from his fall.

The property of a public agency is in a dangerous or defective condition, within the meaning of the Public Liability Act, when it involves an unreasonable risk of injury or hazard to the public. (Hawk v. City of Newport Beach, 46 Cal.2d 213, 217, 293 P.2d 48; Torkelson v. City of Redlands, 198 A.C.A. 359, 362, 17 Cal.Rptr. 899; Gallipo v. City of Long Beach, 146 Cal.App.2d 520, 527, 304 P.2d 106; Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 104 Cal.App.2d 212, 215, 231 P.2d 167; Castro v. Sutter Creek Union High School Dist., 25 Cal.App.2d 372, 377, 77 P.2d 509; cf. Fackrell v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.2d 196, 204, 157 P.2d 625, 158 A.L.R. 773.) The degree of risk incident to 'a given condition of property is determinative as to whether it is a dangerous or defective condition within the purview of the Statute.' (Jones v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 104 Cal.App.2d 212, 215, 231 P.2d 167, 169.) A correlative issue is whether the condition of the property is such that injury to those coming in contact therewith reasonably may be anticipated. (Gallipo v. City of Long Beach, supra, 146 Cal.App.2d 520, 528, 304 P.2d 106; Jones v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 104 Cal.App.2d 212, 215, 231 P.2d 167.) Thus a determination respecting the unreasonableness of the risk or hazard in a given case is related to the question whether injury reasonable may be anticipated from an ordinary use of the property under consideration.

Whether a dangerous or defective condition exists primarily is a question of fact (Aguirre v. City of Los Angeles, 46 Cal.2d 841, 844, 299 P.2d 862; Fackrell v. City of San Diego, supra, 26 Cal.2d 196, 206, 157 P.2d 625, 158 A.L.R. 773; Torkelson v. City of Redlands, supra, 198 A.C.A. 359, 363, 17 Cal.Rptr. 899; Bauman v. San Francisco, 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 153, 108 P.2d 989), but may be decided as a matter of law if reasonable men acting under the law can draw but one conclusion from established facts. (Gray v. Brinkerhoff, 41 Cal.2d 180, 183, 258 P.2d 834.)

In the case at bar a primary issue for determination is whether the existence of an unfilled sandbox beneath a tree in which children are known to climb, and from which it is known they are prone to fall, involves an unreasonable risk of injury or hazard. Under the facts as related in the instant complaint, neither the tree nor the sandbox was in a defective condition. Neither of them was the cause of plaintiff's fall. On the other hand, a dangerous condition 'can be created by the use or general plan of operation of government operated property, as well as by a structural defect.' (Bauman v. San Francisco, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 153, 108 P.2d 989, 995; In accord: Hawk v. City of Newport Beach, supra, 46 Cal.2d 213, 216-217, 293 P.2d 48; Collenburg v. County of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.2d 795, 799, 310 P.2d 989; Gallipo v. City of Long Beach, supra, 146 Cal.App.2d 520, 528, 304 P.2d 106; Irvin v. Padelford, 127 Cal.App.2d 135, 140, 273 P.2d 339; Plaza v. City of San Mateo, 123 Cal.App.2d 103, 107-108, 266 P.2d 523; Wexler v. City of Los Angeles, 110 Cal.App.2d 740, 745, 243 P.2d 868; Harper v. Vallejo Housing Authority, 104 Cal.App.2d 621, 623-624, 232 P.2d 262; Dawson v. Tulare Union High School, 98 Cal.App. 138, 141-142, 276 P. 424.) Relying on this rule, the plaintiff claims that the presence of the unfilled sandbox beneath the tree created a dangerous condition which was the cause of the injury received from his fall. In this regard it is pertinent to note that the actual use made of the property of a public agency, with the latter's knowledge, which has become established, as distinguished from casual, is within the sphere of the anticipated use of that property which must be considered in determining whether its condition involves an unreasonable risk of danger or hazard. (Hawk v. City of Newport Beach, supra, 46 Cal.2d 213, 216, 293 P.2d 48--rock in recreational beach area adjacent to shallow water used as diving platform; Gibson v. County of Mendocino, 16 Cal.2d 80, 84, 105 P.2d 105--courthouse passageway used as shortcut between streets; Torkelson v. City of Redlands, supra, 198 A.C.A. 359, 364, 17 Cal.Rptr. 899--storm drain used as playground; Ziegler v. Santa Cruz City High School Dist., 168 Cal.App.2d 277, 281, 335 P.2d 709; Gallipo v. City of Long Beach, supra, 146 Cal.App.2d 520, 528, 304 P.2d 106--pipeline adjoining bridge used as walkway; Bauman v. San Francisco, supra, 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 153, 108 P.2d 989; Castro v. Sutter Creek Union High School Dist., supra, 25 Cal.App.2d 372, 377, 77 P.2d 509--parkway used for crossing from sidewalk to street.) The complaint herein alleges that the pepper tree in question, with knowledge of the city, ordinarily was used by small children as a subject for their climbing activities which, under the general rule applied in...