 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davis v. County of San Mateo2/28/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Jerry Davis was injured while walking on San Mateo County property. He filed a personal injury suit against the County. The County moved for non-suit at the close of plaintiff's case on the ground that liability was barred by the doctrine of trail immunity, and the trial court granted the motion.
We reverse. Non-suit at the close of a plaintiff's case on the basis of an affirmative defense is proper only when plaintiff's evidence conclusively establishes that the defense applies. Because plaintiff's evidence did not establish that the injury occurred on a public trail, the judgment must be reversed.
Factual and Procedural Background
On January 16, 1999, Jerry Davis went boating at Coyote Point County Park (Coyote Point). On returning to land, Davis needed to use a restroom and ascended a set of stairs to a restroom adjacent to the harbor parking lot. The stairs consisted of a set of nine railroad ties built into a hillside. On his return, Davis slipped on the stairs and broke his leg. Davis sued San Mateo County (County) for negligence and for maintaining a dangerous condition on public property. The case went to a jury trial.
At the close of Davis's evidence, the County moved for non-suit on the ground that it was statutorily immune from liability because the accident site was a recreational trail within the meaning of Government Code section 831.4. The trial court entertained argument and denied the motion without prejudice. However, it required Davis to reopen his case and call as an adverse witness Ty Kang, a field supervisor at Coyote Point. After hearing Kang's testimony and further argument, the court acknowledged that the application of immunity was "the closest of calls." It conducted a site visit on its own motion. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 651.) Following the site visit, the court granted the County's motion, concluding as a matter of law that the accident occurred on a recreational trail covered by section 831.4. Davis's subsequent motion for a new trial was denied and judgment was entered for the County.
Davis has timely appealed.
Discussion
I.Standard of Review
We independently review the trial court's ruling on a motion for non-suit and apply the same standard that governed the trial court. (Saunders v. Taylor (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541-1542.) Defendant is entitled to a non-suit if the evidence presented at trial is insufficient as a matter of law to permit a jury to find in plaintiff's favor. (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 291.)
In deciding whether to a grant a non-suit, a court does not weigh the evidence or consider the credibility of the witnesses. (Carson v. Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, 838.) Instead, the court must "interpret all of the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff's case and most strongly against the defendant, and must resolve all presumptions, inferences, conflicts, and doubts in favor of the plaintiff." (Saunders v. Taylor, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 1541.) If the plaintiff's evidence, when so viewed, provides substantial evidence in support of each element of a prima facie case without any affirmative defense, then a non-suit judgment is improper. (Diesel Electric Sales & Service, Inc. v. Marco Marine San Diego, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 202, 211.) "Alt
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|