Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. Superior Court

Bad Law
108 Cal. App. 3d 567·166 Cal. Rptr. 644·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2082
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 25, 1980Civ. 59343California1,017 words

Opinion

Opinion

Compton, J.

Proceedings in mandamus to vacate an order denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and to direct the superior court to enter summary judgment in favor of petitioner. We issue the writ as prayed for.

One Talma E. Hopper slipped and fell on an allegedly defective step at the entrance to Tiny Naylor’s Restaurant (RPI) in January of 1976. She commenced a personal injury action against RPI in January of 1978.

RPI cross-complained for indemnification against petitioner—the building contractor who built the restaurant. Construction of the restaurant was completed in 1967.

Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 provides that no action for damages resulting from patent defects may be maintained against persons who construct improvements to real property more than four years after substantial completion of the improvement. Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15 provides, in the case of latent defects, a limitation period of 10 years after completion.

Inasmuch as it appears that Hopper’s action against RPI was commenced more than 10 years after petitioner completed construction of the building, we are not here concerned with whether the defect complained of was “patent”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.