Lane
Lane v. City of Sacramento
Opinion
Opinion
Robie, J.
J.—In these consolidated cases, plaintiffs John Montgomery and Ida Lane sought to hold defendant City of Sacramento liable for injuries they sustained when Montgomery’s car struck a concrete divider on a city street. Concluding that plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the divider constituted a dangerous condition of public property for which the city could be held liable under Government Code section 835, the trial court granted the city’s summary judgment motion.
On appeal, we conclude the trial court erred in granting the city’s motion because the city did not offer sufficient evidence to meet its initial burden of showing it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs (see Fischer v. First Internal Bank (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1438 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 162 ]), the following facts appear:
On October 31, 2006, Montgomery drove his Cadillac Seville to pick up Lane at Sacramento State University. The sun set at 5:07 p.m. that day, and it was getting dark when he picked her up.