Edel v. City of West Hollywood CA2/2

Filed 1/5/26 Edel v. City of West Hollywood CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

GLORIA EDEL, B334622

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 20STCV01489)

CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lisa Jaskol, Judge. Affirmed.

David Zarmi for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bordin Semmer LLP, Joshua D. Bordin-Wosk for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________________

Appellant Gloria Edel sought to hold the City of West Hollywood (the City) liable for injuries she sustained in a single vehicle accident. Edel alleged the accident was caused by a dangerous condition of public property or negligence of a public employee or public contractor. The City successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that it had no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Hammond Avenue is a public street owned, controlled and maintained by the City. Concrete traffic bollards (bollards) are located on Hammond Avenue just north of Harrat Street. A city employee daily raises the bollards to restrict traffic between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and lowers them at the end of the restriction period Edel was driving her car along Hammond Avenue in the City at 9:05 a.m. on a weekday morning when she collided with a bollard protruding from the street surface. The City regularly inspects its streets, including Hammond Avenue. Prior to Edel’s accident, the City had no knowledge that a bollard had risen outside of the restriction period. Although she could not be certain, Edel believed the condition had to exist for at least two hours before her accident. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Edel’s third amended complaint alleged two causes of action: liability against the City for a dangerous condition of public property, namely, the bollard protruding from the street surface at the wrong time of day; and negligence against the City and an unidentified independent contractor for design, construction, maintenance, repair, operation and failure to warn of that dangerous condition. The City answered, and later moved for summary judgment.