Mileham v. Walmart CA4/3

Filed 3/29/24 Mileham v. Walmart 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BEVERLY MILEHAM,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063091

v. (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1926986)

WALMART, INC., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Donald R. Alvarez and Bryan F. Foster, Judges. Affirmed. Request for judicial notice denied. Gusdorff Law, Janet Gusdorff; Lyfe Law and Soheil Bahari for Plaintiff and Appellant. Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz & Dolin, Carey Jean Ramin, Andrew Nicholas Kohn; Susman Godfrey, Elizabeth B. Hadaway and Abigail C. Noebels for Defendant and Respondent.

Beverly Mileham sued Walmart, Inc., after she was hit by a car while crossing a crosswalk at a Walmart parking lot. She asserted claims for premises liability and general negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Walmart. Although the court concluded there was a triable issue as to whether the crosswalk was dangerous for lacking additional warning about crossing pedestrians, it found that this condition did not cause the accident, as the driver knew he was at a crosswalk but failed to see Mileham for unrelated reasons. Challenging this ruling, Mileham contends there was a triable issue as to whether the crosswalk’s dangerous condition caused her accident. As explained below, we conclude there was no triable issue because Mileham provided no evidence that any particular feature at the crosswalk both rendered it dangerous and caused the accident. As the trial court concluded, additional warning signage would not have prevented the accident because the driver was fully aware of the potential presence of pedestrians at the crosswalk. And Mileham’s evidence did not suggest other safety features were needed to render the crosswalk safe. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTS I. The Accident and Mileham’s Action On December 11, 2017, Mileham was walking from the parking lot of a Walmart store in Apple Valley toward an entrance to the store. As Mileham was crossing a marked crosswalk leading to the entrance, William Halbe, who was driving west through the crosswalk but did not see her, struck her with his car. Halbe was aware of the crosswalk as he approached it. However, as Mileham was approaching from the right, Halbe was looking to the left for pedestrians coming out of the store. Halbe was completely blind in his right eye, had glaucoma and the beginning of a cataract in his left eye, and was experiencing glare from the sun. Although there was a pedestrian crossing sign at the crosswalk facing eastbound traffic, there was no similar sign facing westbound traffic.