A hazardous sidewalk in San Francisco has led to a lawsuit against the city, highlighting concerns over public safety and municipal responsibility. The complaint was filed by plaintiffs Manjul Khasat, Vijay Khasat, and Sabina Iyengar in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco on July 11, 2024, naming the City and County of San Francisco as defendants.
The plaintiffs allege that on June 24, 2023, while walking along a sidewalk adjacent to 464 John F. Kennedy Drive in San Francisco, they encountered a dangerous condition that resulted in severe injuries. According to the complaint, the sidewalk had a significant defect—a missing portion and a crevice causing a drop-off of three to five inches—which created an uneven and unsafe walking surface. This defect allegedly caused Manjul Khasat to trip and fall, leading to injuries including damage to her ankles and mental distress.
The plaintiffs assert that the City and County of San Francisco either created this hazardous condition through negligence or failed to address it despite having actual or constructive notice. They argue that the city had ample time before the incident to either warn pedestrians or take corrective measures but failed to do so. "As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' conduct," states the complaint, "plaintiff Manjul Khasat tripped and fell over the defect on the side of the sidewalk."
In addition to seeking general damages for physical pain and suffering, Manjul Khasat is also pursuing compensation for medical expenses incurred due to her injuries. She anticipates future medical costs as well. Her husband, Vijay Khasat, has filed for loss of consortium, claiming that his marital relationship has been adversely affected due to his wife's injuries. He seeks damages exceeding the jurisdictional requirements of the court.
Sabina Iyengar, who witnessed her mother's fall firsthand, has also joined as a plaintiff under claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress based on contemporaneous experience. She alleges that witnessing her mother's accident caused her significant emotional distress requiring potential future medical treatment.
The plaintiffs are collectively seeking various forms of relief from the court: general damages according to proof for each cause of action; special damages according to proof; interest at the legal rate; costs of suit; and any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.
Representing them are attorneys John E. Hill and Luis F. Landeros from The Law Offices of John E. Hill. The case is being overseen by Judge Austin Lam under Case ID CGC-24-616410.