 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
James v. City of Bakersfield2/19/2003
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 30, 1999, appellant Gregory James (James) filed an unverified complaint for motor vehicle personal injury and premises liability in Kern Superior Court. James alleged he was the victim of a motor vehicle accident at the Bakersfield intersection of Stockdale Highway and Village Lane. He named respondent City of Bakersfield (City) and Does 1-50 as defendants and prayed for compensatory damages and prejudgment interest.
On August 13, 1999, James served the complaint upon City.
On September 10, 1999, City filed an answer generally denying the material allegations of the unverified complaint (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 431.30) and setting forth 19 affirmative defenses.
On June 8, 2000, City moved for summary judgment (Code Civ. Proc., 437c), alleging it was entitled to design immunity.
On June 29, 2000, James filed a motion for continuance of trial and hearing on the City's motion for summary judgment. James alleged he needed 160 days to notice and depose City traffic engineers relative to light design changes so he could establish a dangerous, defective, and unsafe condition of a signaled intersection.
On July 3, 2000, City filed written opposition to James's motions to continue trial, the hearing on City's motion for summary judgment, and the hearing on discovery motions.
On September 12, 2000, James filed a motion to continue City's motion for summary judgment. On September 19, 2000, James filed a supplemental declaration of his counsel in support of that motion to continue and City filed written opposition to James's motion to continue City's motion for summary judgment.
On September 22, 2000, the court continued City's motion for summary judgment to October 30, 2000.
On October 23, 2000, James filed a separate statement of undisputed facts in support of his opposition to City's motion for summary judgment.
On October 27, 2000, City filed a written reply to James's written opposition. City also filed a written objection to James's opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
On November 17, 2000, the court granted City's motion for summary judgment, holding the City's decision on signs was governed by design immunity.
On December 7, 2000, the court signed an order granting the City's motion for summary judgment. On December 11, 2000, the court filed that order with the clerk of court. On the same date, the court filed a formal judgment in favor of the City.
On February 5, 2001, James filed a notice of appeal from "the Judgment entered on December 7, 2000."
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Facts Underlying the Modification of the Subject Intersection
The City of Bakersfield has 230-235 signaled intersections, most of which have protected left turn signals. Three or four intersections are known as "protected permissive." A protected left turn protects motorists from collision. Such a left turn allows the driver to turn on a green arrow. This means the signals have been timed and sequenced so there is no oncoming traffic. A permissive left turn is an old fashioned type of "light" which allows the driver positioned in the left turn pocket to turn at his or her own discretion on a "green ball" when there is a break in traffic. The Bakersfield intersections that utilize the protected permissive left turn signalization include H Street at Planz Road, H Street at Wilson Road, and Mount Vernon Avenue at Christmas Tree Lane.
The intersection of Stockdale Highway and Village Lane is a public roadway in the City of Bakersfield. For several years, the intersection of Sto
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|