Contreras

Leticia Contreras appeals from a summary judgment by which the Alameda Superior Court dismissed her premises liability complaint against respondents Mark Anderson and Jennifer Boehler. She alleged respondents were liable for injuries suffered from a fall on a brick walkway contained in a city-owned planting strip in front of their property. The trial court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to Williams v. Foster (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 510 [ 265 Cal.Rptr. 15 ] (Williams), ruling that “a property owner is not liable to [the] public merely for failing to maintain [a] public sidewalk.”

Contreras contends that Williams, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d 510 is not applicable to her case, and that respondents are liable under four alternative theories of liability. First, she contends the evidence is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether respondents controlled the public planting strip and, thus, owed her a duty of care under the recent Supreme Court decision Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 448 , 929 P.2d 1239 ] (Alcaraz). Second, she contends the evidence is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether an alteration was…