Pamela Campbell vs. City of Long Beach

Case Background

On October 28, 2019, Pamela Campbell filed a premises liability lawsuit against the City of Long Beach, alleging it caused her injuries due to negligence. The case was filed in the California Superior Court,  Los Angeles County. Judges Michele E. Flurer, Michelle C. Kim, Anne Hwang, and Audra Mori presided over this case. [Case number: 19STCV38464]

Cause

On October 15, 2018, Pamela Campbell was walking along the sidewalk near 6075 California Avenue in Long Beach, California. While walking, her foot hit a raised section of the curb, causing her to fall to the ground.

Campbell asserted that the city’s failure to maintain the sidewalk properly led to her accident. She claimed that the hazardous condition directly resulted in her injuries.

Damages

As a result of the Defendant’s negligence, Campbell required medical care and incurred ongoing medical expenses due to her injuries. She also suffered wage loss, a decrease in earning capacity, and general damages. Additionally, Campbell sought compensation for other damages related to the incident.

Campbell requested the court to award compensatory damages, cover the costs of the suit, and grant any relief deemed fair and appropriate.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Pamela Campbell
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): George Mgdesyan | Araksya Boyadzhyan
  • Defendant(s): City of Long Beach
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Mark Diao

Claims

Pamela Campbell filed a lawsuit against the City of Long Beach and unnamed parties (Does 1–100), alleging negligence and unsafe property conditions. She claimed the defendants carelessly owned, managed, and maintained the premises, leading to her slip, trip, and fall. As a result, she suffered serious injuries.

In her claim of a dangerous condition on public property, Campbell alleged that the City of Long Beach owned the hazardous property. She asserted the city knew or should have known about the dangerous condition before the accident. Furthermore, she argued the city had enough time to address and fix the issue but failed to do so. Campbell also stated that the dangerous conditions resulted from actions taken by city employees.

Defense

The City of Long Beach admitted some allegations, denied others, and presented several defenses in response to the lawsuit. It broadly denied liability, claiming it caused no harm or damages and that the complaint failed to establish a valid cause of action due to vagueness and insufficient evidence.

The City argued that Campbell voluntarily assumed all risks, barring recovery, and invoked legal immunities for public entities and employees acting within their scope. It denied any special relationship or duty owed to Campbell and asserted that property conditions mentioned in the lawsuit posed no substantial risks. The City maintained it acted reasonably in inspecting and maintaining public property, with no negligence in its design, construction, or oversight. It also denied prior notice of hazardous conditions or sufficient time to address them.

The City attributed damages to third parties or the plaintiff’s actions, citing contributory and intervening causes. It argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, exceeded initial claims filed with state authorities, and violated the statute of limitations for property improvements. The City sought to reduce damages based on the negligence of other parties. It also claimed immunity from punitive damages and cited procedural failures, including noncompliance with pre-litigation claim requirements.

Jury Verdict

On March 12, 2024, a twelve-member jury found that Defendant City of Long Beach was negligent and despite having notice of the existence of the dangerous condition did nothing to protect against it. The jury awarded the following damages:

A. Economic loss 

  • Past medical expenses: $79,691.25
  • Future medical expenses: $25,000

B. Non-economic loss 

  • Past: $250,000
  • Future: $100,000

The verdict in this premises liability lawsuit totaled $454,691.25.

On April 04, 2024, Judge Michele E. Flurer entered an amended judgment consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available for purchase upon request