When there is a trip and fall on a public sidewalk in the city of Los Angeles the potential defendants that can be named in the complaint are the City of Los Angeles and the abutting property owner.
The abutting property owners owe a duty of care to keep the adjoining sidewalks in a safe and non-dangerous condition pursuant to California’s Street & Highway Code § 5610, “The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street… shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger person or property…” Similarly, the recently revised 2017 version of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 62.104(b) states that, “The owner of a Lot shall maintain any Sidewalk, Driveway Approach, Curb Return or Curb on the Lot in such condition that the Sidewalk, Driveway Approach, Curb Return or Curb will not endanger any Person or property passing thereon or violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.” The City of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance imposing a duty of care on abutting property owners. Ordinance No. 184596, “An ordinance amending Section 62.104 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to return the repair and maintenance of Sidewalks, Driveway Approaches, Curb Returns and Curbs to property owners, to provide a fix and release program for the repair and maintenance of Sidewalks and to authorize a Sidewalk Repair Warranty and a Sidewalk Repair Incentive Program.”, Effective Date: January 16, 2017.
It is important to highlight though, that this duty is owed to the public entity and not to third parties using the adjoining sidewalks. The courts have determined that the abutting owners’ duty to maintain the sidewalk and parkway under section 5610 is not owed to members of the public. (See for example, Williams v. Foster (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 510, 522).
Nevertheless, certain exceptions apply. Under the “Sidewalk Doctrine,” the case law has held that property owners are not responsible for defects in sidewalks abutting their property but only where property owners have done nothing to cause the defects.
The owner of land abutting a public sidewalk does not have a duty to keep that sidewalk in a safe condition and is not liable to travelers injured as a result of defects in the sidewalk which were not created by the landowner. This body of law is known as the “Sidewalk Accident Decisions” doctrine. (Seaber v. Hotel Del Coronado (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 481, 487-488; Selger v. Steven Brothers, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1585, 1589-1590; Williams v. Foster (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 510, 515-522; Jones v. Deeter (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 798, 803; Corcoran v. City of San Mateo (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 355, 359; Schaefer v. Lenahan (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 324, 326-332.)
Generally, one does not have a duty to maintain an abutting sidewalk or roadway in a safe condition or warn others of a dangerous condition not created by him but known to him. (Seaber v. Hotel Del Coronado (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 481, 487-488; Selger v. Steven Brothers, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1585, 1589-1590.) One only has a duty to warn of a dangerous condition on an adjacent sidewalk or roadway if he has altered the sidewalk for the benefit of his property or has created the dangerous condition by his affirmative conduct. (Seaber, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 488.)
Therefore, in order to maintain the owner of the adjacent public property as a defendant, the plaintiff will need to show or present evidence that the owners caused or contributed to the alleged dangerous condition establishing basis for imposing liability on such defendants.
