Gophers Can Cause Trip and Falls

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

I went out for another walk today, in the late afternoon.  I love to see California native wildlife, like a California Pocket Gopher

I am a big fan of California wildlife, particularly Pocket Gophers, though not as much as my late friend Emma.  I had never seen a living pocket gopher before, but this individual poked his head up a few times, and I was able to get a picture of his head.  Unfortunately, I only had an iPhone to take a picture, and it was from about six feet away.

Gophers can cause damage to lawns.  They can also damage parks.  When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I defended a lawsuit involving an AYSO coach who allegedly tripped and fell in a field in Wildwood Park.  Because the case involved a public entity, the plaintiff had to plead and prove a dangerous condition of  public property cause of action, but with a private landowner, the standard is typically negligence.  The case also involved cross-complaints against the City’s pest controller contractor and the American Youth Soccer Organization.  If I recall correctly, the American Youth Soccer Organization, Inc. picked up the City’s defense under an express indemnification clause in a field use agreement.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2012 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

What is a “dangerous condition of public property?”

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

A public entity may only be held liable for a dangerous condition of its property, not for simple negligence or premises liability.   Before I was in private practice helping plaintiffs, I received a good education in a variety of dangerous condition of public property cases when I was Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino and as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands.

A “dangerous condition” is “a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury when such property . . . is used with due care in a manner in which it is foreseeable that it will be used.”  Government Code § 830(a).  A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of property it owns or controls if the plaintiff establishes that (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury; (2) that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and either (i) a public employee, within the scope of his or her employment, negligent or wrongly committed an act or omission that created the condition or (ii) the entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in sufficient time before the injury to take protective measures against the dangerous condition. California Government Code §§ 830, 835.

What are the kinds of scenarios that might involve two public entities, or a mix of public entities and private entities?  The scenarios I have seen as an attorney have included:

1. A city, a water district, and a private land owner, where a sidewalk panel was removed to replace a meter box, and the sidewalk panel was never replaced.  The plaintiff tripped and fell.

2. A city, a school district, and an adjoining land owner, and a nonprofit youth organization, where the plaintiff tripped over a utility cover, wherein the surrounding compacted dirt had eroded over the years, but no sidewalk ever existed.

3. A city, a county, and a private land owner, and a private party, where a motorcyclist died at an intersection jointly controlled by the city and county, when the motorcyclist was struck by the private party’s automobile.

4. A trip and fall that happened only in one city, but the plaintiff sued two cities because it was not clear which entity owned or controlled the sidewalk.

5. An injury to a person who was waiting at a bus stop from a city tree in a city park, but at a bus stop owned and controlled by a joint-powers authority transit system.

6. A flooding case wherein the flood control channel was owned by a county flood control agency, but the culvert and bridge were owned by a city.

California Government Code section 830(c) states “‘Property of a public entity’ and “public property” means real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity, but do not include easements, encroachments and other property that are located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or controlled by the entity.”

“Where the public entity’s relationship to the dangerous property is not clear, aid may be sought by inquiring whether the particular defendant had control, in the sense of power to prevent, remedy or guard against the dangerous condition; whether his ownership is a naked title or whether it is coupled with control; and whether a private defendant, having a similar relationship to the property, would be responsible for its safe condition.”  Low v. City of Sacramento (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 826, 833-834.

Obviously, ownership is a key fact to prove.  Control can be more difficult.  In the case of a jointly controlled intersection, there is typically an agreement between the two public entities. Obtain and examine that agreement (either through discovery or by using the California Public Records Act).  Control can be established by deposing maintenance workers who have personal knowledge of the maintenance work done at the property, and to a limited extent, with written discovery.

In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the California Supreme Court ruled that  “the location of public property, by which users are subjected to hazards on adjacent property, may constitute a dangerous condition” under Government Code sections 830 and 835.  Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 815-816.

Therefore, there are factual scenarios where more than one public entity can be responsible for one injury by pleading and proving a dangerous condition of public property cause of action.  In the flooding scenario noted above, the plaintiff also pled an inverse condemnation cause of action.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

      Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Can two public entities be jointly responsible for the same injury under a dangerous condition of public property theory of liability?

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

A public entity may only be held liable for a dangerous condition of its property, not for simple negligence or premises liability.   Before I was in private practice helping plaintiffs, I received a good education in a variety of dangerous condition of public property cases when I was Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino and as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands.

A “dangerous condition” is “a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury when such property . . . is used with due care in a manner in which it is foreseeable that it will be used.”  Government Code § 830(a).  A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of property it owns or controls if the plaintiff establishes that (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury; (2) that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and either (i) a public employee, within the scope of his or her employment, negligent or wrongly committed an act or omission that created the condition or (ii) the entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in sufficient time before the injury to take protective measures against the dangerous condition.  Government Code §§ 830, 835.

What are the kinds of scenarios that might involve two public entities, or a mix of public entities and private entities?  The scenarios I have seen as an attorney have included:

1. A city, a water district, and a private land owner, where a sidewalk panel was removed to replace a meter box, and the sidewalk panel was never replaced.  The plaintiff tripped and fell.

2. A city, a school district, and an adjoining land owner, and a nonprofit youth organization, where the plaintiff tripped over a utility cover, wherein the surrounding compacted dirt had eroded over the years, but no sidewalk ever existed.

3. A city, a county, and a private land owner, and a private party, where a motorcyclist died at an intersection jointly controlled by the city and county, when the motorcyclist was struck by the private party’s automobile.

4. A trip and fall that happened only in one city, but the plaintiff sued two cities because it was not clear which entity owned or controlled the sidewalk.

5. An injury to a person who was waiting at a bus stop from a city tree in a city park, but at a bus stop owned and controlled by a joint-powers authority transit system.

6. A flooding case wherein the flood control channel was owned by a county flood control agency, but the culvert and bridge were owned by a city.

Government Code section 830(c) states “‘Property of a public entity’ and “public property” means real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity, but do not include easements, encroachments and other property that are located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or controlled by the entity.”

“Where the public entity’s relationship to the dangerous property is not clear, aid may be sought by inquiring whether the particular defendant had control, in the sense of power to prevent, remedy or guard against the dangerous condition; whether his ownership is a naked title or whether it is coupled with control; and whether a private defendant, having a similar relationship to the property, would be responsible for its safe condition.”  Low v. City of Sacramento (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 826, 833-834.

Obviously, ownership is a key fact to prove.  Control can be more difficult.  In the case of a jointly controlled intersection, there is typically an agreement between the two public entities. Obtain and examine that agreement (either through discovery or by using the California Public Records Act).  Control can be established by deposing maintenance workers who have personal knowledge of the maintenance work done at the property, and to a limited extent, with written discovery.

Also, conditions of adjacent property can make public property hazardous.  In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the California Supreme Court ruled that  “the location of public property, by which users are subjected to hazards on adjacent property, may constitute a dangerous condition” under Government Code sections 830 and 835.  Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 815-816.

Therefore, there are factual scenarios where more than one public entity can be responsible for one injury by pleading and proving a dangerous condition of public property cause of action.  In the flooding scenario noted above, the plaintiff also pled an inverse condemnation cause of action.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

A: 300 E. State St. #517

      Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

E: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

W: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Excellent Legal Resource For Those Impacted By Recent Disasters

By Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

After the Old Fire, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino authorized the City Attorney’s Office to assist San Bernardino residents (and later, people in unincorporated areas adjacent to the City of San Bernardino).  Though this was highly unusual (having public attorneys directly assist the public), I was honored to do so, and I saw it as a continuation of my public service work that I had started as the staff attorney at Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino and continued with my nuisance abatement work as a city prosecutor.

While helping members of the public with their legal problems occasioned by their houses burning down and losing all their possessions, we  distributed a useful guide published by the mega-law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.  Though no doubt Morrison & Foerster LLP’s hardworking associates did the heavy lifting, it had the seal of a variety of voluntary bar associations (including the San Bernardino County Bar Association) and the State Bar of California on the back.  Here is a blurb from the Morrison & Foerster LLP website that explains why they created this guide:

In 2007, a series of wild fires broke out in Southern California, destroying at least 1,500 homes and burning over 500,000 acres of land from Santa Barbara County to the US–Mexico border. Nine people died as a direct result of the fire.

The Helping Handbook, which contained information about legal issues that people may face in an emergency, as well as contact information for organizations offering assistance, was originally created as a legal guide for individuals, victims’ families, and small businesses affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Since then, MoFo has continued to work with state and local bars to create versions of the Helping Handbook for people displaced by natural disasters such as the Southern California wildfires of 2003, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the New York flooding in 2006.

With the 2007 wildfires leaving many people displaced in its wake, MoFo decided to create a version of the Helping Handbook to help victims manage in the aftermath. Many of the affected residents’ primary language was Spanish. During this critical time, when advice on how to manage this critical situation was needed most, MoFo and TransPerfect Legal Solutions decided to work together to provide Spanish-speakers with accessible, accurate information about the resources available to help them.

 

The most recent Morrison & Foerster Helping Handbook is from 2008.  As we begin another fire season, (and after the Hill Fire has been contained) hopefully this guide can help people who do not know where to turn after a disaster.
The most important valuable lessons I learned from the Old Fire and its aftermath are that public adjusters must have the best lobbyist in Sacramento.   I never met anyone who was satisfied with a public adjuster. Here is sage advice from the 2008  Helping Hands Fire Handbook:

What is a public insurance adjuster and what should I look for if I decide to hire one?
Public insurance adjusters claim that they can maximize your insurance benefits by finding damage
that an insurance company adjuster might not find. It is generally recommended that you try and settle
an insurance claim directly with your insurance company before you hire a public insurance adjuster.
Your insurance company provides an adjuster to you at no charge. If you use the insurance company’s
adjuster, you still have the right to separately hire a public adjuster to help you. Public adjusters are paid
a fee or a percentage of your claim. It is important that you understand what the fees are and how they
are calculated before you hire a public adjuster. It is always a good idea to rely on referrals from friends
and family to determine which public adjusters are legitimate. If you decide to hire a public adjuster, do
so in writing and make sure that they are licensed. Call the California Department of Insurance (CDI) at
(800) 967-9331 or access the CDI’s website at http://www.insurance.ca.gov for licensing verification and other
information regarding public adjusters. You can also file a complaint at the website or by calling the CDI’s
consumer hotline at (800) 927-4357.

Morrison & Foerster LLP, Helping Handbook, For Individuals and Small Businesses Affected by the 2008 Southern California Wildfires, Pg. 65

If an insurance company is not honoring the policy after negotiations by the policyholder, it is much better to find an attorney who specializes in insurance bad faith who may charge the policyholder a lot less and do a lot more than a public adjuster.  I do not practice  insurance bad faith law, but I was impressed with some of the attorneys that handled bad faith claims after the Old Fire.

The second thing I learned is that you have to analyze your insurance company and your policy, including exclusions, before a disaster.  The way a company treated policyholders poorly made me switch to another company.  I  requested a larger policy limit with my new insurance company which covered the rebuilding of my house.  Of course, after a fire is not the time to change the policy.

The last thing I learned is that it is difficult to inventory your belongings after a disaster.  For one, there is the grief associated with losing your possessions, and there are too many details that you cannot remember.   If you can, inventory your personal property before a disaster, and keep a copy of the list (and pictures and video) off-site.

The three biggest problems the Old Fire victims I assisted had were with their insurance company, then with their contractors or public adjusters,  then with their mortgage companies.  Some were underinsured, some were uninsured.

The information you obtain at this blog is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by reading or commenting on this blog. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.

Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law

Address: 300 E. State St. #517

Redlands, CA 92373

Telephone: (909) 296-6708

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com