Mathews v. City of Cerritos

Opinion

ASHBY, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Ryan Mathews, by his guardian ad litem, sued defendant and respondent City of Cerritos for personal injuries suffered in a bicycle riding accident in a park owned and operated by the city. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)) on the grounds (1) as a matter of law the condition of the park was not a dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code, §§ 830, 830.2, 835) and (2) respondent had design immunity (Gov. Code, § 830.6).

We affirm on the first ground and do not reach the second.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the defendant conclusively negates a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case and demonstrates that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of a trial.

(Molko

v.

Holy Spirit Assn.

(1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107 [252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46].) Whether property is in a dangerous condition often presents a question of fact, but summary judgment is appropriate if the trial or appellate court, viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, determines that no reasonable person would conclude the condition created a substantial risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner which is reasonably foreseeable that it would be used. (Gov. Code, § 830.2;

Dominguez

v.

Solano Irrigation Dist.

(1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1098, 1103 [279 Cal.Rptr. 470];

Bartell

v.

Palos Verdes Peninsula Sch. Dist.

(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 492, 497 [147 Cal.Rptr. 898].)

Appellant received a new bicycle for his eighth birthday about a month before the accident. The accident occurred when appellant attempted to ride his bike down a very steep hill in the park, on an overcast day when the grass was wet with dew. He lost control, ran into a drainage ditch and was thrown into a block wall, injuring his arm and teeth.