Puskar

Puskar v. City & County of San Francisco

Good Law
191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 751·239 Cal. App. 4th 1248
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 27, 2015F070153California2,980 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hill, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered against him in an action alleging he was injured by a dangerous condition of public property. The alleged dangerous condition was the absence of a fire extinguisher from the residence plaintiff rented from defendant. The trial court concluded liability was precluded by the immunity accorded to a public entity for failing to provide or maintain fire protection facilities or equipment. We conclude the trial court properly applied the immunity statute and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was a forest ranger at Yosemite National Park. He lived in a residential unit he rented from defendant, a public entity. Defendant provided plaintiff and other tenants with fire extinguishers; it collected and exchanged them in a process that normally occurred within a single day. On October 22, 2011, plaintiff was cooking in his residence when oil in a sldllet on the stove caught fire. Plaintiff ran to get the fire extinguisher, but it was not there. It had been picked up about a month before and had not been replaced. After unsuccessfully attempting to smother the flames with a baking sheet, plaintiff grabbed 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.