Quantcast

Plaintiffs Allege Negligence Against City and County Over Dangerous Sidewalk Conditions

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Saturday, November 23, 2024

Plaintiffs Allege Negligence Against City and County Over Dangerous Sidewalk Conditions

State Court
D691e8d9 8172 4d73 bde7 59eb790ac607

hammer | https://www.pexels.com/

In a compelling legal battle, two California residents have taken on the City and County of San Francisco, alleging negligence that led to serious injuries. The complaint was filed by Kim McLaughlin and Gary Spicer in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco on October 28, 2024. They accuse the City and County of San Francisco of failing to maintain safe public sidewalks, which resulted in McLaughlin's severe injuries.

The lawsuit stems from an incident on May 17, 2024, when Kim McLaughlin tripped over a raised section of sidewalk at Columbus Avenue and Powell Street in San Francisco. This fall caused her significant harm, including a shattered elbow and fractured ribs. The plaintiffs argue that there were no warning signs indicating the dangerous condition of the sidewalk, which posed a substantial risk to pedestrians exercising reasonable care. According to their attorney John G. Roussas from Cutter Law P.C., both governmental entities are responsible for maintaining safe conditions on public property under California Government Code § 835.

McLaughlin and Spicer allege that despite having actual or constructive notice of these hazardous conditions through reports like the "Street & Sidewalk Maintenance Standards Calendar Year 2022 Annual Report," which classified such defects as severe, the City and County failed to act appropriately. Instead, they performed negligent temporary repairs that concealed rather than corrected the danger. The report indicated that 75% of evaluated city sidewalks were defective, with large protrusions posing tripping hazards being particularly problematic.

The plaintiffs seek several forms of relief from the court. They demand general damages exceeding the court's jurisdictional minimums, compensation for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, prejudgment interest on damages from their CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise date, costs incurred during litigation, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. Additionally, they have requested a jury trial for all issues eligible for such proceedings.

Representing McLaughlin and Spicer is attorney John G. Roussas from Cutter Law P.C., while Judge Sahar Enayati will oversee case number CGC-24-619295 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.

More News