Kathleen Maguire Miller vs. Matthew Olivares, et al

In this premises liability lawsuit, on February 27, 2024, the California jury returned a defense verdict after determining that the City of Los Angeles did not own the property where the Plaintiff tripped and fell.

Case Background

On November 08, 2019, Kathleen Maguire Miller filed a premises liability lawsuit before the California State, Superior Court, Los Angeles. Judges James A. Kaddo, Anne Hwang, Michelle C. Kim, Michael E. Whitaker, and H. Chester Horn presided over this case. [Case number:  19STCV40421]

Cause

On December 12, 2018, Plaintiff Kathleen Maguire Miller was at 1156 Oak Grove Drive in Los Angeles, California. At around 8:00 a.m., she walked from the front of the property towards the street on Oak Grove Drive, which lay directly in front of the property. As Miller approached where the asphalt street met the lower part of the garage driveway apron, she suddenly tripped and fell.

This fall was caused due to the existence of a hazardous condition as the street and driveway were damaged and worn. Defendants City of Los Angeles (COLA), Matthew Olivares, and Does 51 through 75 were responsible for leasing, inspecting, maintaining, managing, repairing, and controlling this portion of the street and driveway.

Injury

Plaintiff Miller sustained severe injuries while walking in the area where the asphalt street met the bottom of the garage driveway in front of the property. The damaged, worn, and unrepaired street surface caused Miller to trip, stumble, and fall. She suffered a Type II open fracture and dislocation of her right ankle.

The injury required several treatments: 1) excisional debridement of the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscle, and bone, extending four centimeters, 2) open reduction and internal fixation surgery for the right fibular fracture, 3) open repair of the deltoid ligament, and 4) a stress examination of the right ankle.

Damages

Plaintiff Kathleen Maguire Miller sought judgment against Defendants Matthew Olivares, City of Los Angeles, Sancon Technologies, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, as follows:

1. Economic and non-economic damages for past, present, and future psychological, emotional, and physical pain, suffering, distress, and injury;
2. Medical and incidental expenses in an amount to be determined;
3. Legal interest on the judgment;
4. Costs of the suit incurred;
5. Any additional relief the Court deemed just and appropriate.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Kathleen Maguire Miller
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Matthew S. McNicholas | Juan C. Victoria
  • Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles | Matthew Olivares | Sancon Technologies | Does 1 through 100
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael Feuer | Kathleen A. Kenealy | Scott Marcus | Wilberta Breedy-Richardson | Valerie R. Valadez | Michael D’Andrea | Shelly Mosallaei

Claims

On December 12, 2018, Defendants negligently and recklessly maintained and controlled their property. Before this date, Plaintiff Miller was a healthy, active woman who could perform daily activities such as working, driving, cooking, and caring for herself and her family. Defendant COLA’s failure to maintain and repair the hazardous condition on Oak Grove Drive allowed it to remain in violation of Government Code Section 835. This created a foreseeable risk to individuals like Plaintiff. Defendants did not address the dangerous condition, failing to meet their mandatory duty under Government Code Section 815.6.

Defense

The Defendants denied the allegations that their negligence caused the Plaintiff to fall and sustain severe injuries and damages. The Defendants filed cross-complaints seeking indemnity.

Jury Verdict

Only the City of Los Angeles remained as a defendant by the time of trial. On February 27, 2024, the California jury found that the City of Los Angeles did not own or control the property where the Plaintiff fell. As a result, the Plaintiff was not entitled to recover any damages from it.

On April 19, 2024, Judge James A. Kaddo entered a judgment consistent with the jury verdict in this premises liability case.

Court Documents:

Available upon request