Isaacs v. County of Sacramento CA3

Filed 7/3/25 Isaacs v. County of Sacramento CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

ROBIN ISAACS, C099369

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2020- 00285887-CU-PO-GDS) v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant and Respondent.

Robin Isaacs was injured near an airport security checkpoint when she slipped and fell after throwing papers into a trash can. Isaacs sued the County of Sacramento (County) and others for premises liability on the theory of dangerous condition of public property under Government Code1 section 835. To prevail on a claim under section 835, the plaintiff must show “the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.

1

injury, . . . the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, . . . the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and . . . 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 [with] sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.” Isaacs alleged the County was liable for her injuries because it created a dangerous condition by “causing the area to be slippery” when “water and/or a similar substance was allowed to exist and/or accumulate” on the floor. The County filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Seeking reversal, Isaacs asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the floor was slippery when she fell. She relies solely on her deposition testimony that the cause of her fall “had to have been something slippery on the floor, water or something like that, that would cause one to slide.” We conclude summary judgment was appropriate and thus affirm. BACKGROUND Isaacs was in line at an airport security checkpoint when she “slid and fell” after throwing papers into a trash can. She sustained several injuries. Isaacs did not see anything on the floor before or after “she fell that she believed caused her to fall,” did not see anyone else fall in the same area, and did not see anyone “clean anything off the floor after her fall.” When someone who Isaacs believed was associated with the airport asked her about the cause of her fall, Isaacs responded: “I slid. I don’t know. I took a step forward and slid.” Isaacs is unaware of any witness who could testify regarding her fall. Approximately five minutes after the fall, the airport’s operations officer responded to the area where Isaacs fell. Isaacs told him the floor was slippery, but the operations officer found the area to be well lit, dry, and free of debris and hazards. The