Los Angeles Sidewalk Injury Case Settles for $200K
Table of Contents
Case Background
On September 28, 2021, Plaintiff Meir Blum walked to synagogue along Cashio Street in Los Angeles. He used the public sidewalk near 9500 Cashio Street. Defendant City of Los Angeles owned, maintained, and controlled that sidewalk. The surface was uneven and raised. The location saw regular pedestrian traffic. Plaintiff resided in Los Angeles. He filed a government claim on March 27, 2022. The City denied it on May 5, 2022.
Cause
Plaintiff alleged the sidewalk contained an approximately two-inch height discrepancy. The defect created a foreseeable tripping hazard. Plaintiff asserted the City created the condition through negligent installation or maintenance. Alternatively, the City received actual or constructive notice in time to repair or warn. Plaintiff claimed the City failed to act reasonably. He argued gross negligence given the sidewalk’s pedestrian use. The alleged failure to inspect, maintain, or warn set the dispute in motion.
Injury
Plaintiff tripped and fell on the raised edge. He reported significant bodily injuries. The injuries restricted daily functioning and mobility. He required medical evaluation and treatment. The fall disrupted his routine and caused pain.
Damages
Plaintiff sought general damages for pain and suffering. He requested medical expenses for diagnosis and treatment. He claimed loss of income and diminished earning capacity. He asked for prejudgment interest, costs, and further relief the c found proper. The claimed losses reflected continuing physical and financial strain.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Meir Blum
Counsel for Plaintiff: Meghry V. Garabedian | Bradley S. Wallace
Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles
Counsel for Defendant: Patty Thammalaiviroj
Claims
Plaintiff brought one count: Dangerous Condition of Public Property under Government Code §835. He alleged the City owned and controlled the sidewalk. He claimed the defect created a substantial risk when used with due care. He pled liability through creation of the condition or notice with time to fix or warn. He further cited Government Code §§815.2, 815.4, and 820 for negligent acts by City employees or contractors. He alleged gross negligence consistent with §831.7(c)(1)(E) and failure to warn under §831.7(c)(1)(A).
Defense
The City of Los Angeles filed a general denial to Plaintiff Meir Blum’s allegations. It argued that Plaintiff’s own negligence directly caused or contributed to the alleged damages, warranting a reduction or bar to recovery. The City further claimed that negligence by third parties contributed to the incident. It asserted that Plaintiff knowingly assumed the risks associated with the sidewalk condition. In addition, the City contended that the action was barred by statutes of limitation under Code of Civil Procedure §342 and Government Code §945.6, as well as by Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the California Tort Claims Act.
The City also invoked statutory immunities under multiple provisions of the Government Code, including §§815.2, 818.2, 818.4, 818.6, 820.2, 820.8, 821, 821.2, 821.4, 830.4, 830.6, 830.8, 831, 831.2, 831.25, 831.3, 831.4, 831.7, 835.4, 840, and 840.6, as well as Streets and Highways Code §1806. These defenses collectively sought to shield the City from liability by framing the sidewalk condition as either non-actionable under statutory protections or outside the City’s responsibility.
Settlement
The parties resolved the dispute through settlement. The City of Los Angeles agreed to pay Plaintiff Meir Blum $200,000 in full and final satisfaction of all claims. This settlement concluded the litigation, avoided further trial proceedings, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com