$60K Settlement in San Francisco Sidewalk Injury Case
Table of Contents
Case Background
On March 31, 2022, Lyudmila Maleva walked on Gough Street between Otis and Market Streets in San Francisco. The public sidewalk there was cracked, broken, and uneven. The City and County of San Francisco owned and controlled the area. Maleva filed a government claim in May 2022. The City rejected it in September 2022. She then filed suit in the San Francisco Superior Court.
Cause
Maleva alleged the City allowed the sidewalk to remain in a dangerous and defective condition. The surface was damaged to the point of creating a foreseeable risk of injury. According to the complaint, the City knew or should have known about the hazardous condition but failed to repair it. The City also did not post warnings to alert pedestrians. Maleva argued this negligence directly caused her fall.
Injury
Maleva tripped on the damaged sidewalk, fell forward, and lost consciousness. She suffered head trauma, a spinal injury, and shoulder injuries. She also sustained abrasions and shock to her nervous system. These injuries caused severe physical pain and emotional distress. Maleva alleged ongoing limitations in her health, strength, and daily activities. She claimed her injuries would lead to permanent disability and lasting suffering.
Damages
Maleva sought compensation for general and special damages. She claimed medical expenses already incurred and anticipated future costs of treatment. She also requested damages for pain, suffering, and permanent disability. Her claim emphasized both the physical impact and the emotional distress caused by the fall.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Lyudmila Maleva
Counsel for Plaintiff: Michael Martinovsky
Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco | City and County of San Francisco, a California Municipal Corporation | Does 1–20
Counsel for Defendants: Thomas J. Tarkoff
Claims
The complaint included one cause of action: Negligence. Maleva alleged the City breached its duty under California Civil Code §835 to maintain safe public property. She argued the City had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and failed to fix it or warn the public. She sought general damages, special damages, interest, costs of suit, and any further relief the court deemed proper.
Defense
The Defendant, City and County of San Francisco, filed a general denial to the Plaintiff’s complaint, disputing all allegations and claimed damages. The City asserted that the Complaint failed to state a valid cause of action and argued noncompliance with the Tort Claims Act, the statute of limitations, and multiple statutory immunities under the California Government Code.
In its affirmative defenses, the City raised comparative negligence, assumption of risk, lack of dangerous condition, minor or trivial risk, absence of actual or constructive notice, and Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages. It further claimed defenses under Proposition 51 limiting liability for non-economic damages, variance between the tort claim and Complaint, and the Public Works Code. The City also reserved rights to contribution, indemnity, or set-off from other responsible parties. Overall, the defense strategy combined procedural bars, statutory immunities, and arguments attributing fault to Plaintiff and third parties.
Settlement
The parties reached a conditional settlement of the entire case for $60,000. Under the agreement, dismissal was contingent on completion of specified terms not performable within 45 days of the settlement date. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal no later than June 17, 2025. The trial previously set for April 21, 2025, in Department 206 of the San Francisco Superior Court, would not proceed as the settlement terms were fulfilled.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at Jurimatic@exlitem.com