Facts

On June 18, 2013, plaintiff Michael Williams was going for his morning walk and was two houses away from his home in Long Beach of over 15 years when he tripped on an elevated gap in the sidewalk.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the deviation in the sidewalk was a dangerous condition. Plaintiff argued the gap was just high enough to pose a tripping hazard, but not so high, that it would be readily apparent. Plaintiff admitted that he could have been a little more attentive, but that did not excuse the City of Long Beach for leaving a potential tripping hazard unfixed.

Plaintiff argued that defendant's inspection system was inadequate, and if they had an adequate inspection system in place, that the deviation would have been discovered. Plaintiff argued that city employees, such as tree trimmers, should have been trained to spot potential hazards and a tabulation system should have been in place to keep track of the number of calls for any given block to see how to best allocate resources. Plaintiff claimed the tree trimmers had been out on the block to deal with tree hazards in the three years prior to the incident. Plaintiff further argued that the amount of times defendant had responded to other calls on the block, both sidewalk and non-sidewalk related, in the three years prior to the incident should have put them on notice if the employees had been adequately trained. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant had actual notice because the deviation appeared on a 2000 survey done by the city.

Plaintiff's liability expert testified that the deviation, which was over half an inch, posed a potential tripping hazard. Plaintiff was able to elicit from defendant's expert that the city had been to the same block several times for other problems in the three years prior to the incident. Plaintiff's liability expert testified that this constituted sufficient notice that the city should been aware of the dangerous condition.

Plaintiff's counsel informed the jury that plaintiff was accepting responsibility for his actions and that, while he had been monitoring to make sure he was not hit by drivers moving their cars for street sweeping, he could have, perhaps, been more attentive. Plaintiff asked for an allocation of 80 percent of fault to the city, and 20 percent to plaintiff. Plaintiff's friend and daughter testified to the impact of the injury on his life.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that the deviation was trivial and that thousands of people, including plaintiff, had likely walked over that deviation in the past decade without ever tripping. Defendant pointed to the fact that there were no requests for service at the location of the deviation until after plaintiff's fall. Defendant also argued that due to the contrast of the deviation, as well as the fact there were no shadows or other distractions, that had plaintiff been watching where he was going, he would not have fallen.

Defendant contended that their inspection system was reasonable as very few cities have active inspection systems, and none that does is the size of the City of Long Beach. Defendant contended that their employees were adequately trained and there was simply no time or budget to implement the kind of plan that plaintiff proposed. Defendant opined that such a plan would be cost-prohibitive given amount of sidewalk surface area in the city and the need to allocate resources to the most heavily traversed areas, which posed the greatest threat to the community. Defendant argued that since plaintiff lived on a cul-de-sac in a residential part of town, as opposed to a busy thoroughfare, it was lower on the list of priorities than higher traffic areas. Defendant denied that the deviation was present on the sidewalk during the 2000 survey after a thorough review.

Defendant argued that plaintiff's injury was a simple, uncomplicated fracture and that should have healed within six months. Defendant argued any pain plaintiff was experiencing currently was the result of his age and degenerative changes in his body.

Defendant's expert testified that the city does not have the budget to conduct an inspection of the full street when they respond to a call, and that they use a reactive system based upon calls and complaints. Defendant's expert admitted under cross-examination that the city has no system in place to monitor how many requests for service occur on each block to identify trouble spots. Plaintiff's expert contended that the deviation was present on a survey done in 2000, a fact which defendant's expert disputed. Defendant's expert further testified that, due to the small size, the deviation did not create a dangerous condition. It was his opinion that, since the corner of the misalignment was lifted approximately one and a half inches and there were no shadows, the gap was open and obvious and could have been stepped over if plaintiff had been paying attention.

Settlement Discussions

Defendants submitted a CCP 998 offer for $10,000. Shortly before trial, defendant offered $25,000. Plaintiff submitted a CCP 998 offer for $74,999.99.

Damages

The agreed upon past medical bills under Howell were $15,190. Plaintiff's medical expert, a surgeon at the VA offered testimony by video and did not provide the cost for a future wire removal. Defendant's medical expert, who opined that plaintiff likely did not need the wires removed, stated any future wire removal could be done in-patient for a cost of $5,000. There was no loss of earnings claim.

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered a broken kneecap as a result, and wires were placed to help it heal. Plaintiff required physical therapy, which was done at the Veteran's Administration. Plaintiff argued that his knee injury impeded his life and activities. Defendant's medical expert further testified that plaintiff suffered an uncomplicated fracture, which should have healed in six months with no residual complaints.

Result

The jury unanimously found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him $145,190, which included $60,000 past pain and suffering, $60,000 future pain and suffering, $15,199 past medical damages, and $10,000 future medical damages. While plaintiff had asked for an 80 percent allocation of fault to the city and a 20 percent allocation to plaintiff, the jury returned with an 85 percent allocation to the city and 15 percent allocation to plaintiff.

Other Information

FILING DATE: March 5, 2014.

Deliberation

two hours

Length

four days