Personal Injury Law

Major Crack In Mall Pavement Causes Injury To Sacramento Woman, Part 5 of 9

By Moseley Collins, Esq.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this trip and fall/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

In the instant case, we are not presented with a "mere crack" in the pavement; rather, we are dealing with a one-inch rise in the pavement and a one-inch gap between the pavers. In Caloroso, the court, focusing simply on a crack defect, stated that minor defects like a crack in the walkway are "inevitable," so the failure of the homeowner to warn the plaintiff, or to repair the crack, was not unreasonable (Caloroso, at 923). That is not the same situation in the Brown case: a one-inch rise and a one-inch gap are not inevitable.

In Plaintiff Judy Brown's case, she submits that it was not only the rise in height of the pavement (which cannot be defined as a mere crack) in conjunction with the gap in between the pavers constituted a dangerous sidewalk defect, and one which caused her to trip and fall.

To further distinguish Caloroso from the instant case, in that case, the fall occurred on the walkway owned by a homeowner; whereas, in sharp contract, Plaintiff Judy Brown trip and fall accident occurred on a shopping Mall walkway. Certainly it is reasonable for one to expect that a shopping Mall, like Defendant Universal Mall, has a special duty toward its patrons, like Plaintiff, to detect and repair defects on its property that could foreseeably harm them. Civil Code Section 1714 clearly mandates that every person has a duty to manage his property so as not to cause an injury to persons. See also Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97.

Full post as published by Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog on May 07, 2010 (boomark / email).