CALOROSO

CALOROSO v. Hathaway

Bad Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 922·19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 254·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1611·2004 Daily Journal DAR 12118·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8874
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2004B170132California2,230 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grimes, J.

BACKGROUND

This appeal presents the question whether the trial court correctly determined as a matter of law that a private landowner owed no duty to pedestrians to either warn them of a trivial defect in his walkway or to repair it. Plaintiffs/appellants Josephine Caloroso and Joseph Caloroso seek reversal of a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant/respondent Larry Hathaway (Hathaway) in this premises liability and loss of consortium case that arose when Mrs. Caloroso tripped over a slight crack in a walkway in front of Hathaway’s home. In the complaint, the Calorosos alleged that individual concrete slabs of walkway were cracked, jagged, and depressed, and constituted a dangerous condition. They further alleged that Hathaway’s failure to repair the crack and failure to warn about the dangerous condition caused the accident.

Hathaway moved for summary judgment on the ground that he owed no duty to plaintiffs because the risk of injury was trivial, the injury was not foreseeable, and he had no notice of a dangerous condition. The accident occurred on a dry and sunny morning. The elevation difference along the edge of the crack ranged from zero to either 0.4 or…

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.