Harrasser v. City of Buenaventura CA2/6

Filed 9/23/25 Harrasser v. City of Buenaventura CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

MICHAEL HARRASSER, 2d Civ. No. B338833 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2021- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00550399-CU-PO-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA,

Defendant and Respondent.

After tripping on a sidewalk, Michael Harrasser sued the City of San Buenaventura (the City) alleging a dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code,1 § 835). Harrasser appeals from the order granting summary judgment in the City’s favor. He contends there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged defect was trivial. We affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise noted.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2020, Harrasser was walking eastbound on East Warner Street in Ventura, returning home after taking the bus to the grocery store. Harrasser’s foot caught on the sidewalk where a concrete panel met an asphalt ramp, and tripped, twisting his knee. Prior to the incident, the sidewalk had lifted due to a growing tree root in a planter next to the sidewalk. In February 2020, the City applied black asphalt to smooth or “ramp” the transition between the sidewalk panels and eliminate any height differential between them. The sidewalk was removed and replaced several years later in 2023. Harrasser sued the City in propria persona, alleging causes of action for negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property.2 He contended the raised sidewalk constituted a dangerous condition and that he sustained injury to his right knee. At his deposition, Harrasser testified that, prior to the incident, he had walked the same route at least five times since the February 2020 asphalt application with no issues. He had seen the height differential between the concrete panel and the asphalt ramp prior to the May 2020 incident, but was able to avoid as it “didn’t seem to . . . bother” him. He estimated the deviation between the concrete panel and the asphalt ramp measured between one-quarter to three-eighths of an inch. At the time of the incident, the sidewalk was dry, it was light out, and there were no conditions impeding Harrasser’s