This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury
Dangerous Condition of Public Property
Trip and Fall

Michael Petersen v. City and County of San Francisco, and Does 1 to 50

Published: Feb. 10, 2023 | Result Date: Nov. 8, 2022 | Filing Date: Sep. 12, 2019 |

Case number: CGC-19-579234 Settlement –  $75,000

Judge

Samuel K. Feng

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Seth I. Rosenberg
(Emergent LLP)

Anup A. Mehta
(Emergent LLP)


Defendant

James F. Hannawalt
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Facts

On September 16, 2018, Michael Petersen tripped on a sprinkler head at Grattan Playround in San Francisco and broke his ankle. Petersen brought a complaint against the City and County of San Francisco, alleging negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that the Gratton Playground, which is owned, operated, and maintained by defendant, was in a dangerous condition because it had a recently-installed sprinkler head that was raised above the ground and did not retract into the ground when not in use. Further, plaintiff contended that he tripped over the sprinkler head due to this dangerous condition. Finally, plaintiff maintained that defendant had actual and constructive notice of this dangerous condition and the means to repair the condition but failed to do so.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant alleged that plaintiff had full knowledge of the risk involved in the activity that he was engaged in at the time of the incident and voluntarily assumed the risks incident to the activity. Further, defendant contended that the negligence of both plaintiff and other parties contributed to and was a proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. Defendant also argued that plaintiff's claims are barred by the California Tort Claims Act of the California Government Code. Finally, defendant denied that plaintiff had been damaged by any act or omission of defendant and that plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

Result

The City and County of San Francisco settled the case for $75,000.


#140194

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390