Facts

This matter concerned a serious injury incident that occurred in the evening hours of August 17, 2019 on an elevated sidewalk near the Greenwich Street Stairs in North Beach. While walking on the sidewalk, Plaintiff Linda Howdyshell inadvertently stepped off of an unmarked, unguarded edge abutting the sidewalk. The stairs in the area were concealed due to the lack of lighting, due to being set within the structure and due to a lack of handrails that would have indicated their otherwise hidden presence. Because of the area's lack of lighting, the lack of visual cues that the sidewalk is on top of an elevated structure, and the inability to anticipate there would be a sudden drop of two to three feet, Plaintiff fell off the elevated sidewalk. Plaintiff fractured her hip in the fall.
Although originally designed in 1917 to be a landscaped slope with two stairways cutting across it from street to sidewalk, the City and County of San Francisco has since turned it into an elevated sidewalk by removing landscaping from the area in which Plaintiff fell and covering it with concrete. Despite its height, the structure has no guardrails - in violation of the San Francisco Building Code. There are no warnings to indicate to pedestrians using the walkway that there is an abrupt drop-off of several feet. There is no overhead lighting to enable pedestrians to discern the features of the structure, or to even know they are walking on a structure at all. Prior to the subject incident, City workers inspected the subject structure in response to a citizen complaint as recently as August 7, 2019. In that complaint, a resident reported a lack of handrails in the area, noted the danger of the area, and even stated that a resident had recently fallen on the subject structure.

The dangerous structure is comprised of an embankment on top of which there is a sidewalk and inside of which there are several utility boxes. Along the embankment runs a retaining wall. The area where plaintiff fell is paved and does not contain landscaping. The height of the wall in the area in which plaintiff fell is between two and three feet. As it reaches the western staircase, the wall's height exceeds 30 inches. The area in which plaintiff fell was also unlit, lacking any overhead lighting, thus making it impossible to tell that there was an abrupt end to the sidewalk, or that there was a stair-structure in the area. Lights in the area had been covered by mature trees, which blocked any lighting. The San Francisco Building Code requires guardrails on a structure, such as this one, where the elevation difference between surfaces is more than 30 inches. Despite the height of the retaining wall and embankment, there are no guardrails or barriers at the edge. There are also no warnings to pedestrians indicating that the walking surface will end.

On August 17, 2019, after 8:30 p.m., plaintiff was walking on the north sidewalk of Greenwich Street east of Grant Street. Plaintiff had never walked in the subject area before. As she approached Child Street, plaintiff crossed the street to enter the south sidewalk. In order to access the south sidewalk, plaintiff had to squeeze between cars parked tightly along the curb. It was after dark and plaintiff could not see that there were stairs nearby because of the lack of lighting, because the stairs were blocked by the parked cars and because the stairs lacked railings to indicate their presence. Plaintiff took several steps on the sidewalk towards the unlit building in front of her. Plaintiff did not know that the sidewalk was raised nor that it abruptly ended due to the darkness in the area, lack of guard rails, lack of warning regarding the drop-off, and lack of railings for the nearby stairs that plaintiff could not see. After a few steps, plaintiff stepped forward and fell off the ledge from a height of between two and three feet.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that she encountered an unlit, unmarked, unguarded sharp drop-off and raised portions of concrete/walking surface that caused her to fall. This structure, drop-off, and defect occupied a substantial portion of the sidewalk and constituted a dangerous condition of public property, as it made the surface of the sidewalk unreasonably and dangerously uneven. Plaintiff contended that the structure and sidewalk that caused plaintiff to fall was owned, maintained and/or controlled by defendant; agents and/or employees of defendant were negligent or made wrongful acts and/or omissions in the course of their employment with defendant which created the dangerous condition; and defendant had actual and/or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and sufficient amount of time prior to plaintiff's fall to have taken measures to protect against it. Defendant failed to inspect, maintain, or repair this portion of the sidewalk and structure and failed to warn of the dangerous condition or guard against pedestrians encountering the defect. The subject portion of the sidewalk and structure, inadequately lit, and with no barriers to guard against the risk of falls, created a substantial, non-trivial risk of injury to persons walking on it with reasonable care in a reasonably foreseeable manner, especially in the dark.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions and argued that it was entitled to design immunity for the allegedly dangerous condition. Government Code Section 835, which plaintiff brought her cause of action, is part of an overall policy that recognizes no municipality should be expected to maintain its routes of transportation in perfect condition lest the threat of strict liability bankrupt the municipality or stymie the development of new routes of transportation. Defendant contended that plaintiff's dangerous condition cause of action must fail because defendant was entitled to design immunity based on its reasonable design of the sidewalk on Greenwich Avenue.

Injuries

Plaintiff suffered a shattered hip, broken wrist, leg injuries, hand injuries and arm injuries, among other injuries. Plaintiff required medical treatment, including hospitalization, surgery, radiological studies, nursing care, and physical and occupational therapy.

Result

The case settled for $750,000.