 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thianmethakun v. City of Monterey Park11/6/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Somjai Thianmethakun brought this action against the City of Monterey Park for dangerous condition of public property after she was hit by a car while she was crossing the street in a marked crosswalk. The trial court sustained the City's demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. Because we find Thianmethakun has stated a cause of action against the City, we reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
On August 28, 1999, at approximately 9:30 a.m., Thianmethakun was walking across Garfield Avenue in the City of Monterey Park (the "City") in a crosswalk marked by two painted white lines. Garfield Avenue runs north and south and has two lanes for traffic in each direction. The crosswalk at issue is just south of the intersection of Roselyn Place and Garfield Avenue. This is a "T" intersection, with Roselyn Place meeting Garfield Avenue only on the west side. A stop sign on Roselyn Place controls traffic entering Garfield Avenue. There is no stop sign on Garfield Avenue just before the intersection or crosswalk. Nor are there any signs, lights or additional markings on the road indicating the presence of the marked crosswalk. Garfield Avenue does not have a marked crosswalk on the north side of the intersection.
Just before the accident, the driver of a Toyota Tacoma, a minor, was traveling southbound on Garfield Avenue in the inside lane. The car in front of her stopped, presumably because its driver saw Thianmethakun crossing the road. Instead of stopping behind the other car, the minor steered the Tacoma into the outside, southbound lane. The Tacoma struck Thianmethakun as she was walking across Garfield Avenue in the marked crosswalk. The impact caused Thianmethakun to be thrown 20 feet and to sustain multiple injuries.
Thianmethakun filed a tort claim against the City, alleging, in part, "the painted crosswalk, at the `T' intersection . . . and surroundings roadway environment, constituted a dangerous condition of public property" and the crosswalk "was negligently and dangerously designed, constructed and maintained." After the City rejected the claim, Thianmethakun brought this action against the minor, the registered owner of the car and the City.
Thianmethakun's second amended complaint includes one cause of action against the City for dangerous condition of public property.
Thianmethakun alleges the City's property was in a dangerous condition for the following reasons: (1) traffic in multiple lanes on Garfield Avenue made it difficult to see "the two painted white crosswalk lines"; (2) the painted lines "had been poorly maintained and were worn, faded and/or otherwise partially obscured by use including black skid marks"; (3) the crosswalk lines, "by virtue of their presence in the middle of the block, created a false sense of pedestrian confidence and safety"; (4) cars parked on each side of Garfield Avenue, and the absence of "parking restrictions" immediately before and after the crosswalk, made it difficult for drivers to see the crosswalk lines and pedestrians who had entered or were about to enter the crosswalk; (5) " here no marked crosswalk on the north side of the T intersection"; (6) the intersection had no (a) "traffic control signals, stop signs or yield signs controlling northbound and southbound traffic" on Garfield Avenue, (b) "diagona
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|