Kaney

Kaney v. Custance

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 2022B302835ACalifornia7,758 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Background Cassell owned a residential property (property) in the City of Hermosa Beach (City) since 1972. The property has one

1 We use “stairs” and “stairway” interchangeably when referring to the stairs that appellant was using just prior to her fall.

2 Cassell was the original respondent in this appeal. She passed away and we appointed Carol A. Custance (respondent) as Cassell’s successor in interest and substituted her in as the respondent in this matter pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.36(a).

3 Appellant seeks review of the denial of a motion for new trial as well as summary judgment. Because we conclude that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment, denial of the new trial motion is moot.

2 bathroom, which has a two-step stairway leading up to a platform with a commode. The stairway did not have a handrail. Appellant’s sister, Marilyn Mazza (Mazza), rented the property from Cassell for approximately 18 years, and over that time appellant visited Mazza on multiple occasions. Sometimes appellant would stay for as long as 10 days to two weeks. She used the bathroom during her visits, and did so without any mishaps. In…

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.