Plattner

Plattner v. City of Riverside

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 130·69 Cal. App. 4th 1441·82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 211·99 Daily Journal DAR 1559
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1999E020878California1,933 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

The issue in this appeal is whether a city’s failure to maintain a streetlight over a crosswalk creates a dangerous condition of public property. This question comes to us by way of summary judgment entered in favor of the City of Riverside in an action for damages based on injuries Sarah Salmi suffered when she was hit by a car while crossing the street in the unlighted crosswalk. In its summary judgment motion the city asserted that a municipality has no duty to provide street lighting and, therefore, has no duty to maintain that lighting, even at a crosswalk. The trial court agreed and granted the city’s motion. We will affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against the driver of the car that hit her and against the city for not maintaining the streetlight. In her second cause of action for negligence and dangerous condition of public property, plaintiff alleged, in pertinent part, that the city “undertook to provide streetlighting as a part of its governmental function, and as such undertook the duty to provide such service in a non-negligent manner. The installation of the subject streetlight was necessary to obviate the…

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.