A property owner is not liable for damages caused by a minor, trivial, or insignificant defect in his property. (Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 922, 927 [sidewalk crack less than one-half inch in depth].)
This principle is sometimes referred to as the "trivial defect defense," although it is not an affirmative defense but rather an aspect of duty that plaintiff must plead and prove. (Ibid.)
Persons who maintain walkways--whether public or private--are not required to maintain them in absolutely perfect condition. (Ibid.)
"The duty of care imposed on a property owner, even one with actual notice, does not require the repair of minor defects." (Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398 [raised edge of three-fourths inch trivial as a matter of law]).
Some defects are bound to exist even in the exercise of reasonable care in the maintenance of property and cannot reasonably be expected to cause accidents. (Johnson v. City of Palo Alto (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 148, 151 [18 Cal. Rptr. 484] (Johnson), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 831 [15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 679, 843 P.2d 624].)
v. City of
See also recent unpublished case of Cadam v. Somerset Gardens Townhouse HOA (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 383.
Whether a condition is dangerous
is almost always considered a question of fact that may be resolved as
question of law only “if reasonable minds can come to but one
The Court in Fielder
observed, “[i]t is to be noted that when the size of the depression
stretch beyond one inch, the Courts have been reluctant to find that
is not dangerous as a matter of law.”
2. TOTALITY OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES LIMITATION OF TRIVIAL DEFECT RULE:
 the physical characteristics of the defect (i.e., size, jagged edges, broken pieces, exposed rebar),
 the setting (lighting, weather, other factors affecting visibility), and
 history (plaintiff's familiarity with the area, any previous injuries attributable to the defect).
(E.g., Dolquist v. City
a. Tape Measure Test (1” to 1-1/2” or less) is not the only factor.
Although the size of a crack or pothole is a pivotal factor in the determination, “a tape measure alone cannot be used to determine whether the defect was trivial.” (Caloroso, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 927.)
“Instead, the court should determine whether there existed any circumstances surrounding the accident rendered the defect more dangerous than its mere abstract depth would indicate.” (Fielder v. City of Glendale (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 719, 734 [139 Cal. Rptr. 876] (Fielder); see also Dolquist v. City of Bellflower (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 261, 268 [241 Cal. Rptr. 706] (Dolquist) [same].)
"Obviously, no fixed measurement in inches of height, depth, or width of an obstruction or depression can be adopted or established as a standard because a determination of whether a condition is trivial or not depends upon all of the circumstances surrounding the existence of the conditions in the particular case. Therefore, it is incumbent ... to … review the evidence …and determine whether in the light of all of the surrounding circumstances the defect was minor or trivial as a matter of law." Ibid at Page 52.
In Beck v. City of Palo Alto (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 39, the Appellate Court was again asked to determine what size of offset in a sidewalk was a trivial defect. The Court said:
"The size of the defect is only one circumstances to be considered, as no court has fixed an arbitrary measurement in inches below which a defect is trivial as a matter of law and above which it becomes a question of fact whether or not the defect is dangerous. All of the circumstances surrounding the condition must be considered in the light of the facts of the particular case." Ibid at Page 43.
Further, California Building Code requires beveled slopes of no greater than 50% for changes in elevation from 1/4" to 1/2". If the change in elevation is greater than 1/2" then have to use a curb ramp.
Thus, is sidewalk trip and fall cases in California against private property owners (premises negligence) and municipalities (dangerous condition of public property), "trivial" defect as a matter of law typically has been held to be 1 to 1.5” inches or less, but this can vary according to the other surrounding circumstances.
See Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 922, 927 [court should consider whether walkway had broken pieces, jagged edges, debris or grease or water concealing the defect, and the lighting of the area, conditions obstructing plaintiff’s view, among other things].
"…where… aggravating circumstances or facts were present…where the defect goes beyond a mere depression between two adjoining slabs and consists of potholes, jagged breaks and cracks or also contains the presence of foreign substances such as grease and oil, then it can not be said that the defect is trivial and minor as a matter of law"(Fielder v. City of Glendale, 71 Cal.App.3d 719, 726.)
b. Cumulative Dangers (instead of isolated defect):
“Where an entire sidewalk area is in a broken, dilapidated and fragmented condition, so that pedestrians using it must undergo the hazards of many inequalities, any one of which might cause a fall, the reason behind the rule should cease to operate. An isolated minor defect may be so trivial, that though it creates a peril to pedestrians using it, the city as a matter of public policy may not be held liable to repair it. An entire sidewalk crumbling and falling apart is an entirely different matter and the city should not be entitled to ignore the cumulative perils presented by its generally fragmented condition.”
c. Admission of Danger by Defendant:
See Laurenzi v. Vranizan (1945) 25 Cal.2d 806, 812 [city inspector's testimony that sidewalk defect as depicted in photographs was hazardous precludes finding that defect trivial as a matter of law].)
Palmer v. City of
3. HOW THE COURT ANALYZES THE TRIVIAL DEFECT ISSUE:
Quotes below are from Stathoulis
v. City of
“An initial and essential element of recovery for premises liability under the governing statutes is proof a dangerous condition existed.” (Barrett v. City of Claremont (1953) 41 Cal.2d 70, 72–73 [256 P.2d 977] (Barrett), citing Nicholson v. City of Los Angeles (1936) 5 Cal.2d 361, 363 [54 P.2d 725] (Nicholson).)
a. Trivial (Not Dangerous) as a Matter of Law:
“The doctrine permits a court to determine whether a defect is trivial as a matter of law, rather than submitting the question to a jury. (Ursino, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 399.)”
(1) Summary Judgment:
(2) Rationale for the Rule:
“The rule which permits a court to determine ‘triviality’ as a matter of law rather than always submitting the issue to a jury provides a check valve for the elimination from the court system of unwarranted litigation which attempts to impose upon a property owner what amounts to absolute liability for injury to persons who come upon the property. … [A] landowner is not an insurer of the safety of its users.” (Ursino, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 399.)
(3) Order and Steps of Courts Analysis:
“The legal analysis involves several steps.
First, the court reviews evidence regarding the type and size of the defect.
If that preliminary analysis reveals a trivial defect, the court considers evidence of any additional factors such as the weather, lighting and visibility conditions at the time of the accident, the existence of debris or obstructions, and plaintiff's knowledge of the area.
If these additional factors do not indicate the defect was sufficiently dangerous to a reasonably careful person, the court should deem the defect trivial as a matter of law and grant judgment for the landowner.” (Fielder, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 729.)
“If…the landowner is a public entity, the court must also determine whether the defect was conspicuous enough to place the entity on notice. (§ 835.) To that end, it must consider the seriousness of the defect, its visibility to pedestrians, the frequency with which the area is travelled and the likelihood a reasonable inspection would have revealed the defect in time to make necessary repairs.” (Dolquist, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 268; Thomas et al., Premises Liability in California (2005) § 3:47, p. 223.)”
If you've been the victim of a premises liability incident, contact Christian lawyer, Matthew B. Tozer for a free consultation.Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is informational, only. The subject matter and applicable law is evolving and/or constant state of change. This advice is based on California law. No legal advice is given and no attorney/client or other relationship is established or intended. The information provided is from general sources, and I cannot represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in this website is accurate, current, or is appropriate for the usage of any reader. It is recommend that readers of this information consult with their own counsel prior to relying on any information on this website.