Chandler v. City of Cypress CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Apr 14, 2021 No. G058898Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the sidewalk defect was trivial as a matter of law and that the City lacked actual or constructive notice of the condition, thereby precluding liability under Government Code section 835.

Issues

Whether a sidewalk crack with a height differential of 3/4 to 1 1/2 inches constitutes a dangerous condition as a matter of law.
Whether the City had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the defect in the sidewalk was trivial as a matter of law; the City also made a prima facie showing it had no notice of the crack in the sidewalk.”

“Sidewalk elevations ranging from three-quarters of an inch to one and one-half inches have generally been held trivial as a matter of law.”

“On this record, we cannot find the City had actual or constructive notice in August 2017 that the alleged defect existed.”

Filed 4/14/21 Chandler v. City of Cypress CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARIE CHANDLER,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058898

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01040959)

CITY OF CYPRESS, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah C. Servino, Judge. Affirmed. Commerce Law Group, Sassan Mackay for Plaintiff and Appellant. Aleshire & Wynder, Anthony R. Taylor, Michelle E. Sassano, and Roy C. Santos for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

While walking on a public sidewalk in a residential neighborhood in the City of Cypress (City), Marie Chandler tripped on a crack and fell. As a result of her fall, Chandler suffered significant injuries. She thereafter filed a complaint against the City, asserting a single cause of action for dangerous condition of public property under 1 Government Code section 835. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. After independently reviewing the record, we affirm. As explained below, the defect in the sidewalk was trivial as a matter of law; the City also made a prima facie showing it had no notice of the crack in the sidewalk.

2 FACTS One summer evening in August 2017, after attending a local event, Marie Chandler (who was age 74 at the time) was walking to her car with her husband and her adult son at about 8:00 p.m. The sun was going down, but it was not yet dark. Chandler tripped on a crack in the sidewalk and fell, which caused her face to strike the ground. Police responded to the scene, and an ambulance transported Chandler to the emergency room. According to the City, the crack crossing the sidewalk was over three feet long with a maximum width of three-eighths (3/8) of an inch, and the crack had a height

Chandler v. City of Cypress CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARIE CHANDLER,

CITY OF CYPRESS, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GOETHALS, J.

ARONSON, ACTING P. J.

THOMPSON, J.

AI Brief