Hull vs. City of Orange

302 Hull vs. City of The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on 1/8/26 Orange by Defendant City of Orange (City), which seeks summary judgment on the Complaint filed on 6/25/24 by Plaintiff Brandon Jacob Hull (Plaintiff) is GRANTED.

City has met its burden to show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the sole cause of action asserted by Plaintiff against City, for dangerous condition of public property. In response, Plaintiff has failed to show a triable issue of material fact as to either that cause of action or the proffered defense thereto.

City has shown that it did not have notice of a dangerous condition at the subject Intersection prior to the accident. It is undisputed that there had been no reported accidents there in the past decade. (UF 6.) Plaintiff argues that City had been on notice of visibility issues based on complaints in 2005 and 2007. (AF 23, 24, 32, 36, 73.) But a single prior accident does not establish notice that an intersection was unreasonably dangerous. (Mixon v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 124, 138.) Similarly, one complaint about safety concerns in 2007 does not suffice. (Id.) City has also shown that in response to the 2005 complaint, it extended the red zone to improve visibility – and thereafter, had no further complaints about that intersection. (UF 6-9.)

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections, filed as ROA 125, are OVERRULED. City’s Evidentiary Objections, filed as ROA 132, are SUSTAINED on Obj. Nos. 2 and 3 [hearsay] but otherwise OVERRULED.

City shall give notice.

303 United Auto Plaintiff United Auto Credit Corporation’s motion Credit to enforce settlement is GRANTED. (See Code of Corporation vs. Civ. Proc. § 664.6.)