Tamalelagi Schwalger v. County of Riverside

Case Background

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff Tamalelagi Schwalger, represented through his Guardian ad Litem Robert Schwalger, who is Plaintiff’s father, filed a premises liability lawsuit against the County of Riverside. He sustained severe head and brain injuries when a large branch fell on him at a public park. The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Riverside County. Judge Manuel Bustamante oversaw the proceedings. [Case Number: CVBL2200010]

Cause

On July 21, 2021, around 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff Tamalelagi Schwalger was camping at Mayflower County Park, located at 4980 Colorado River Road, Blythe, CA 92225. While at the park, a large tree branch, weighing about 70 pounds, fell from above. The branch struck Tamalelagi directly on the head, causing severe and critical injuries.

Tamalelagi was knocked unconscious and airlifted to Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego. There, doctors diagnosed him with a severe traumatic brain injury, skull fractures, acute respiratory failure, and kidney injury. On July 22, 2021, he underwent emergency brain surgery to remove a subdural hematoma. After the surgery, he regained consciousness in the hospital.

He remained hospitalized for over two months. On September 29, 2021, he was discharged to a rehabilitation facility. Since being discharged, Tamalelagi has reportedly been functioning slightly below his baseline.

Injury

Tamalelagi suffered multiple injuries to his head. These included a skull fracture, brain injuries, and a subdural hematoma. He also experienced a traumatic brain injury and diffuse axonal injury. Additionally, he became unconscious. Tamalelagi faced urological and kidney injuries, along with respiratory complications.

Damages

Tamalelagi sought compensation for his past and future medical expenses. He also sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Tamalelagi Schwalger
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Robert Glassman | Jonathan H. Davidi
  • Defendant(s): County of Riverside
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Charmaine E. Grant

Claims

The premises liability complaint alleged that the Defendant was responsible for the tree’s maintenance and the park’s safety. According to the Plaintiff, the tree was improperly maintained, inspected, and controlled, leading to its hazardous condition. Specific issues included rotten and decayed branches, overgrowth, and dangerously leaning trees. The Plaintiff also claimed the tree’s roots were neglected, and the area lacked warning signs or barriers to alert visitors about potential dangers.

The lawsuit further accused the Defendant of failing to take necessary steps to address the hazardous conditions, despite having actual or constructive knowledge of the risks. Plaintiff argued that Defendant had sufficient time and resources to remedy the dangers but failed to act, leading to the incident.

The Plaintiff also alleged negligence, stating that the park and surrounding trees were poorly designed, maintained, and inspected. The dangerous conditions were described as a foreseeable risk to visitors, creating a “concealed trap.”

Defense

The County of Riverside responded to the Plaintiff’s complaint by denying all allegations and asserting several defenses. Initially, the County denied all claims and stated that the Plaintiff had not been harmed as alleged. The County also argued that the complaint did not contain sufficient facts to support a cause of action.

The County placed blame on any third parties who may have contributed to the incident and argued that the injuries were caused by factors outside of their control, such as natural occurrences or the actions of others. The defense also claimed that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages and had unreasonably delayed filing the lawsuit, which could bar the claim under the doctrine of laches.

In addition, the County asserted that the risks of the incident were known and voluntarily assumed by the plaintiff, who was aware of the potential dangers. The County further argued that it met all applicable standards of care and government regulations regarding the maintenance of public property.

The County also raised defenses based on the statute of limitations, claiming that the Plaintiff failed to bring the lawsuit within the required time frame. It argued that public entities are immune from liability for injuries resulting from natural conditions on unimproved public property and that no legal cause of action had been stated against them.

Finally, the County contended that it should not be held liable for the actions of public employees or for any harm caused by the design or planning of public property improvements, as these were approved by the appropriate governmental bodies.

Settlement

Both parties reached a settlement before the trial in this premises liability lawsuit. The county agreed to pay Tamalelagi $12 million.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com