Trivial Defects Are Not Legally Dangerous Conditions

Summary: A pedestrian fell when she tripped over a vertical misalignment of less than one inch between a metal plate covering an underground utility vault owned by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) and the sidewalk adjacent to property owned by Hip Ben Benevolent Association. In Miller v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1161, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the defendants upholding the trivial defect doctrine.

Discussion: Plaintiff, Crista Miller, was walking down Washington Street in San Francisco when she tripped on a vertical misalignment of less than one inch between a metal plate covering an underground utility vault and the adjacent sidewalk. The metal plate, made of ordinary, diamond-plated metal, was wet because it had drizzled earlier. The night sky was dark, misty, and foggy. Miller claimed that she failed to see the half inch misalignment because she was walking downhill.

At the time of the incident, the City’s Department of Public Works had guidelines in place concerning the repair of sidewalk defects to improve accessibility in the area. Priority repairs included sidewalk defects of vertical displacements of a half inch or more. The City found no complaints or service requests concerning the utility vault, the metal plate, or the sidewalk location or any reports of any previous trip and fall accidents at or near the incident location in the nine years before the incident occurred. The adjacent property owner was also not aware of any prior trip and fall incidents having occurred on the sidewalk adjacent to his property. After Miller’s fall, a City inspector evaluated the incident location and issued repair notices and orders requiring the defendants to repair the vertical misalignment of the sidewalk and the metal plate cover.

The Court of Appeal used a two-step analysis to determine whether the sidewalk defect was trivial and nonactionable. First, the Court reviewed the evidence of the size and nature of the defect. Finding the defect to be trivial based on its physical characteristics, the Court then looked at whether the defect, despite being trivial, was likely to post a significant risk of injury because of conditions of the walkway surrounding the defect or any other circumstance involved in the subject accident.

The Court rejected Miller’s argument that the City’s guidelines to repair sidewalk height differentials one-half inch or greater created a defect that was dangerous because there was no evidence they were not a proper standard. The Court also rejected Miller’s argument that the misalignment would put a reasonably careful person at risk of injury because of either the steep downgrade of the street, the weather and nighttime hour, or the crowds on the street. The Court of Appeal concluded that the misalignment was a trivial defect as a matter of law because the size of the defect was less than one half inch, the defect was illuminated by multiple sources of street and business lighting, no debris concealed the defect, and there were no prior tripping incidents at the subject location.

A copy of the case can be found here.

This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Dana K. Oium.