Huckey

Huckey v. City of Temecula

Good Law
250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336·37 Cal. App. 5th 1092
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 2019E070213California7,229 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fields, J.

*1095 I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant, Charles Huckey, sued defendant and respondent, City of Temecula (the City), for injuries he sustained from tripping and falling on a defective city sidewalk. He alleged the sidewalk defect was a dangerous condition of public property. ( Gov. Code, §§ 830 et seq. ) 1 The trial court granted the city's motion for summary judgment on the ground the sidewalk defect was trivial as a matter of law. The sidewalk was vertically uneven between two concrete panels, and the height differential was 9/16 of *1096 an inch, three feet and one foot from the sidewalk's right edge, and one and 7/32 inches (1.21875 inches), at the right edge, as plaintiff was walking when he fell.

In this appeal, plaintiff claims (1) the City did not meet its initial burden of making a prima facie evidentiary showing that he could not establish that the sidewalk defect was a dangerous condition, or presented a substantial risk of injury ( § 830 ), and (2) the court erroneously concluded that the sidewalk defect was trivial as a matter of law (§ 830.2).

In our de novo review, we conclude the City met its initial burden on its motion, and plaintiff did not present…

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.