 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lompoc Unified School District v. Superior Court of Santa Barbara County12/15/1993
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX
No. B076556
1993.CA.40580 ; 20 Cal. App. 4th 1688; 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 122
Decided: December 15, 1993.
LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, RESPONDENT; MICHAEL D. ELLISON, SR., ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.
Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, No. SM078114, Zel Canter, Judge.
Radovich, Cumberland & Coates and Greg A. Coates for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Perry & Spann and Kelly Watson for Real Parties in Interest.
Opinion by Yegan, J., with Stone S. J., P. J., and Gilbert, J., Concurring.
Yegan
We hold that a public entity which allows a sporting event to take place on its property has no legal duty to provide a distraction barrier to prevent a passing motorist from seeing or hearing the event. In this situation, the public entity has no liability for injuries caused by the inattentive motorist.
PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE
On October 11, 1991, Michael D. Ellison, real party in interest, was riding his bicycle on Pine Street, a public road adjacent to the Lompoc Unified School District's (District) property. A football game was in progress. Ellison was struck and severely injured by a motor vehicle operated by Jill Dickinson.
Ellison filed a complaint against the District, Dickinson, and the City of Lompoc. As to the District, he alleged that it maintained a dangerous condition of public property and that Dickinson ". . . was distracted by the events occurring on and around the athletic field and the gathering of people in the 400 block of Pine Avenue to watch the athletic events occurring thereon. . . ." He claimed that District created and maintained a dangerous condition on its property by cutting back a hedge which had previously served as a distraction barrier. Ellison theorized that the visibility of the school's athletic field from the street attracted spectators and created a carnival-like atmosphere, thereby causing a dangerous condition for bystanders, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.
Dickinson struck Ellison because she was momentarily distracted by either the football game or by some people standing on the District's property watching the game. The collision did not occur upon property owned or controlled by District. The football field is approximately 140 feet from the sidewalk that is adjacent to Pine Street.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
District filed a motion for summary judgment claiming: (1) it owed no duty of care to Ellison; (2) Ellison's injuries were not proximately caused by the condition of the athletic field, and (3) no dangerous condition existed on District's property.
Respondent court denied summary judgment. It determined that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether: (1) the condition of the football field
attracted the attention of motorists; and (2) the District could foresee that harm would result by allowing the public to have an unimpaired view of the football field. Respondent court did not rule on District's contention that, given the undisputed facts, it owed no duty to Ellison.
WRIT RELIEF
District sought a writ of mandate from this court. Appellate courts are reluctant to use the device of an extraordinary w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|