Jordan

Jordan v. City of Sacramento

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 4th 1487·56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 11, 2007C052159California4,815 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

After tripping and falling on a public sidewalk, plaintiff Greta Jordan filed a claim for tort damages with defendant City of Sacramento (City) in October 2003. In January 2004, the City notified her that it had rejected her claim by operation of law. In August 2004, she filed the present action against the abutting property owner, the Capitol Area Redevelopment Authority (CADA). In April 2005, she filed an amended pleading with leave of court adding the City as defendant.

Defendant City successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff 'did not file her action until more than six months from the date of the notice of the rejection of her claim. (Gov. Code, §§ 905, 910, 911.2, 912.4, 913, 945.6.) Plaintiff has appealed in timely fashion from the judgment, contending defendant City should be estopped from asserting the limitations period as a defense. We shall affirm.

Liability for Sidewalk Injuries

The liability of an abutting property owner for injuries resulting from a' defective sidewalk was apparently a source of confusion for the parties and their lawyers. We shall therefore provide a summary of the relevant principles.

Under the common law, a…

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.