A sidewalk defect, often overlooked, can hold legal significance in daily outdoor activities. The Kasparian case underscores this, establishing that a height difference of just ¼ of an inch on a business walkway may be considered a hazardous condition.

To better understand this ruling, it is helpful to compare two cases: Stack v. City of Lemoore (2023) and Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills (2021). Both cases address walking hazards, but they resulted in different outcomes due to the use of the Trivial Defect rule.

The Trivial Defect rule states that property owners aren't liable for injuries from minor defects, like slight height differences on walkways. To determine if a defect is trivial, consider its location, visibility, and history of prior incidents.

The Kasparian case emphasizes that even small defects may not be considered trivial under the right circumstances. 

Stack vs. Martinez (2023) 

Facts:

-          Mark Stack was jogging and tripped over a raised portion of the public sidewalk which was elevated 1.75 inches above its neighboring panel. He broke his wrist and underwent two surgeries.

Outcome:

•          The jury found that the sidewalk was in dangerous condition and awarded him $90,000 in damages. However, the City appealed arguing that the defect was obvious and too trivial to be actionable especially considering the lack of prior incidents and the plaintiffs familiarity with the walkway. 
• The Court of Appeal upheld the judgement for the injured plaintiff. 

Reasoning:

-          The court held that size alone does not make a defect trivial, rather consideration should be given to the surrounding context, including visibility, usage, and the likelihood of harm. 

-          The 1.75-inch height difference of the first defect weighs against finding the sidewalk condition trivial as a matter of law. Also, the lifted panel slopped downward making the height differential harder to see there were also pine needles from a nearby tree obscuring the defect.  

Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills (2021)

Facts:

-          Nieves Martinez, while wearing flip-flops and carrying pastries, was walking between law offices where she tripped in an alley on a 1.75-inch-deep divot where the asphalt had worn away. 

Outcome:

•          The City filed for summary judgement and argued that the divot was too trivial to constitute a dangerous condition. They also argued that the defect was not actionable due to a lack of notice.
• The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the City and denied plaintiffs claim. 

Reasoning: 

-          During repair work in 2015, the City's employees did not see the divot.

-          The alley was not a high-traffic pedestrian area.

Key Takeaways:

The reasoning in the Kasparian ruling was followed by the Court in Stack v. The City of Lemoore (2023), which confirms that minor defects are not always trivial and must be reviewed within the entire context of the situation. In contrast, Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills (2021), shows that the notice of possible danger is critical in establishing evidence for defects on public property. 

In the event of an injury resulting from a slip, trip, or fall on a business or public walkway, please contact the Kohn Law Office at (760) 721-8182 for a free consultation. Watch our video for further information. 

Video Link: 

Image Source: https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=cracked+sidewalk&asset_id=456265034