Facts

Maeve McMahon was walking through a mass transit station when she tripped over a raised sidewalk as she looked toward the train tracks.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended defendants had actual notice of the dangerous condition. The lighting in the area was insufficient, and a hazardous condition was created by the partially raised curb due to poor design, placement, and maintenance. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority was a common carrier responsible for the dangerous conditions. The SCVTA and the City of San Jose exercised joint control over the condition.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: SCVTA argued that it didn't own, control, or maintain the public property on which the alleged dangerous condition existed. McMahon did not exercise due care. Further, insufficient lighting does not create a dangerous condition, and, the defendants had no notice of the alleged danger. McMahon cannot establish the elements for a dangerous condition. Finally, design immunity is a complete defense.

Result

SCVTA's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the city's was denied. As to SCVTA, under Longfellow v. County of San Luis Obispo, a public entity must own the property at issue in a liability action. Here, the city owned the property, and claiming SCVTA should be held responsible, as a common carrier was not alleged in the original complaint. As to the city, arguing that the plaintiff did not exercise due care did not prove that conditions were not dangerous. In addition, summary judgment could not be granted based on the argument that the lighting was sufficient, because it would still not dispose of the plaintiff's other complaints, such as design deficiency. The defendants' burden to prove they had no actual notice of a dangerous condition wasn't met based on their submission of five years of records, when many more prior years of records exist. No evidence existed that would be admissible in support of the design immunity defense.