Ulmer v. City of Los Angeles

BISHOP, J. pro tem.* A summary judgment, entered upon defendant’s motion, was brought to us by plaintiff’s appeal. We find the support required for this “drastic” method of obtaining a judgment quite lacking, and we are reversing the judgment.

It appears that plaintiff and some companions were visiting Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, on the evening of June 24, 1965, when, about 10 o’clock, they were advised that they should leave, as the place was about to be closed. They heeded the warning and while on their way to the parking lot, lights were suddenly extinguished. The plaintiff kept on her way and fell, with the standard consequences: she “was injured in [772]her health, strength and activity. ’ ’ The city takes the position that plaintiff has no cause of action against it: first, because it was under no legal obligation to furnish lights at the location where, and when, plaintiff needed them; and, secondly, because plaintiff was contributorily negligent in continuing on her way when she could not see.

Procedurally, the ease had progressed to the point where the plaintiff had a first amended complaint, filed December 15, 1965, to which the defendant city had filed an answer, setting up several affirmative defenses. Then the defendant filed its “Motion for Summary Judgment” which actually was a notice warning that a motion for such a judgment would be made “upon the grounds that Plaintiff has no cause of action against this defendant, there being no duty owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is barred from recovery being negligent as a matter of law.” The “motion” went on to announce that “Said motion will be made and based upon this Notice, all of the pleadings, records and papers on file herein, upon the Deposition of the Plaintiff, filed herewith, and the Declaration of Leon Hall and Exhibit ‘A’, attached herewith. ”

Several questions ask themselves at this point. Just what was the relation of the city to Griffith Observatory and the paths and area that surround it? What lights are there that, when on at night, afford help to visitors between the observatory and the parking lot? Were they turned off, and if so, .by whom?

We turn back to the pleadings to see if any of these questions were disposed of there. In the first amended complaint plaintiff alleged in paragraphs VI and VIII, that: “VI. At all times mentioned herein, the area and sidewalk on the grounds of the Griffith Observatory and the parking lot contiguous thereto was, and is, public property within said city. . . . VIII. At all times mentioned herein, defendant city maintained lights on said property which illuminated the area between the Griffith Observatory building and the parking lot contiguous to the grounds thereof.” These allegations were denied by the city in its answer. When this issue comes to be decided it will be remembered, of course, that every public building in a city is not the city’s responsibility; it may, for example, be a law library, under the jurisdiction of a special board. A light in a public area in a city may or may not be placed and operated by the city.