Tabita v. City of L.A.
| Decision Date | 05 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | B297258 |
| Parties | LAURIZA TABITA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC644836)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura A. Seigle, Judge. Affirmed.
Alderlaw, Michael Alder and Jennifer P. Burkes for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Scott Marcus, Chief, Civil Litigation Branch, Blithe S. Bock, Assistant City Attorney, and Matthew A. Scherb, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.
____________________ Plaintiff Lauriza Tabita appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant City of Los Angeles (City). We have jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1). We affirm.
The event forming the basis of this lawsuit is alleged to have occurred at Seoul International Park, located at 3252 San Marino Street in Los Angeles, which is maintained by the City of Los Angeles. Within the park is a parking lot. Since at least 1952, the same set of four steps (and partial bottom step) has provided passage from the parking lot down to the park level and gym. The stairs have no handrails. Instead, the stairs are bounded on both sides by walls. The stairs and walls are in good shape—no chips, cracks, holes, or the like—and no signs that handrails had ever been installed. There are no records of any request for maintenance or repair related to the stairs, nor any other evidence of complaints or incidents.
For the June 7, 2016 election, the County of Los Angeles used the gym at Seoul International Park as a polling place. Tabita was to be an election inspector for the County. She arrived at the park that morning, parked in the parking lot, and, without incident, descended the four steps and entered the gym. She had no problem with the stairs and did not need to hold on to anything. Once inside, she found her co-workers and asked them to fetch supplies from her truck. Without incident, three female co-workers ascended the stairs to the truck and, carrying boxes and equipment, descended them back to the gym. Then, Tabita herself ascended the stairs, again without incident, and moved her truck.
Returning to the gym, Tabita descended the stairs with coffee in her right hand and a folder under her armpit. She took three of the steps down just fine, but when she went for the fourth step with her left foot, she "hit the edge" of the third step and lost her balance. She tried to reach for support towards her left with her empty left hand, but she found no rail, twisted her foot, and fell back. When reaching out, she did not grab or try to grab the side wall. After a few minutes, she returned to the gym, decided to leave, walked back up the same stairs, and drove herself to obtain medical care.
Tabita's complaint, filed on December 22, 2016, alleges a single count of negligence based on a dangerous condition of public property. Tabita alleges that "defendants and each of them, carelessly and negligently owned, inspected, controlled, constructed, repaired, designed and maintained said [stairs] in a dangerous, hazardous, and unsafe condition to pedestrians, including the plaintiff herein," and that the defendants had actual and constructive notice of such conditions. The complaint seeks general and special damages according to proof arising out of the alleged injury.
On December 28, 2018, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. The City asserted three legal grounds for this motion: (a) so-called trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4, subdivisions (a) and (b); (b) lack of evidence of dangerous condition or causation under Government Code section 835; and (c) so-called design immunity under Government Code section 830.6. Tabita opposed the motion based primarily on the basis of a declaration submitted by retained expert Mark J. Burns. The City objected to the Burns declaration on various grounds. On reply, the City also submitted a declaration from a civil engineeremployed by the City, David Takata, rebutting assertions in the Burns declaration as to the application and effect of building codes that existed at the time of the construction of the stairway in 1952.
Following a hearing on March 15, 2019, the trial court issued a written decision granting the City's motion for summary judgment. The trial court sustained the City's objections to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Burns declaration. On the merits, the trial court concluded that neither trail immunity nor design immunity applied to shield the City from liability. However, the trial court concluded that Tabita had not established the existence of any triable issue of material fact as to a dangerous condition of the stairway causing Tabita's accident, and granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Tabita timely appealed.
We review a "summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard as the trial court." (Anderson v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 867, 876; accord, Biancalana v. T.D. Services Co. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 807, 813.) A court must grant summary judgment if the papers submitted show there is no triable issue as to any material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843; see Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)
A defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if it demonstrates that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Once the defendantmeets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove the existence of a triable issue of fact regarding that element of its cause of action or that defense. (Ibid.)
On appeal from a summary judgment, "we independently examine the record in order to determine whether triable issues of fact exist to reinstate the action." (Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142.) "In performing our de novo review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[ ] as the losing part[y]. (Ibid.; accord, Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768.) In doing so, we liberally construe the plaintiff's evidentiary submissions and strictly scrutinize the defendant's evidence in order to resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiff's favor. (Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc., supra, at p. 1142.)
Tabita alleges that a dangerous condition on property owned and maintained by the City caused her alleged injuries. Government Code section 835 provides: "Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: [¶] (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or [¶] (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition underSection 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition."
Government Code section 830, subdivision (a), provides in part: " 'Dangerous condition' means a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used."
Government Code section 830.2 provides: "A condition is not a dangerous condition within the meaning of this chapter if the trial or appellate court, viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, determines as a matter of law that the risk created by the condition was of such a minor, trivial or insignificant nature in view of the surrounding circumstances that no reasonable person would conclude that the condition created a substantial risk of injury when such property or adjacent property was used with due care in a manner in which it was reasonably foreseeable that it would be used."
Government Code section 830.5, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part: "[T]he happening of the accident which results in the injury is not in and of itself evidence that public property was in a dangerous condition."
The City contended below and contends here that the steps were not in a dangerous condition within the meaning of Government Code section 830, subdivision (a). The undisputed evidence submitted to the trial court showed that these stairs were built approximately 70 years ago, in 1952. There was no evidence of anyone having trouble with the stairs, or requesting repair or maintenance. The stairs were in a "very good" physical condition. Tabita's accident occurred during daylight when thestairs could be plainly seen and traversed. Tabita herself had used the stairs earlier that morning without incident. Tabita's three election co-workers used the same stairs to carry supplies to the gymnasium.
Tabita's opposition to this aspect of the City's motion was based entirely on the Burns declaration, which asserted two grounds on...
To continue reading
Request your trial