San Diego Settles $4M Public Property Injury Case

Case Background

The City of San Diego agreed to a multi-million-dollar settlement, resolving a personal injury lawsuit filed by resident Michael Fox. Fox filed the civil complaint on March 14, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging that the city’s negligence had caused him significant, lasting injuries. The lawsuit claimed that a dangerous condition existed on public property, and the city, despite knowing or having constructive notice of the hazard, failed to take timely action to protect the public.

Cause

The legal action fundamentally rested on a claim of Dangerous Condition of Public Property against the City of San Diego. The Plaintiff asserted that a specific feature or aspect of property owned or controlled by the city presented a risk of injury that was not immediately apparent to reasonably prudent people. The complaint claimed that this dangerous condition had existed for a sufficient period that the city either knew about it or reasonably should have discovered it. The failure of the city to rectify the hazard or provide adequate warning, the Plaintiff’s attorneys argued, constituted negligence under California Government Code.

Injury

The complaint identified that Michael Fox sustained significant and extensive injuries as a direct result of the incident. While the specific nature of the original accident remained outside the public Court record after the settlement, the scope of the harm became evident through the damages sought. The injuries resulted in the need for extensive past, present, and future medical care and professional expenses. Furthermore, the Plaintiff suffered both physical and emotional trauma, leading to claims for substantial general and non-economic damages, including pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the curtailment of his normal life activities.

Damages Sought

Michael Fox's legal team requested that the Court award damages exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limit for an unlimited civil case. The lawsuit sought to recover both economic and non-economic losses. General, non-economic damages were requested for all past and future pain and suffering. Special, economic damages included recovery for past and future medical expenses, all incidental professional costs, and substantial compensation for lost financial earnings and a diminished earning capacity due to the injuries. The Plaintiff demanded a jury trial to determine the exact amounts necessary to fully compensate him for these losses.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit began with Michael Fox filing his complaint, asserting the city’s responsibility for the dangerous condition that caused his injuries. The City of San Diego formally responded to the complaint on April 18, 2023, with a vigorous denial of fault, initiating a period of legal maneuvering and discovery.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Michael Fox, an individual.

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Robert S. Glassman, Esq. | Erika Contreras, Esq. | John Rajaee, Esq.

Defendant(s): City of San Diego, a public entity | Does 1 through 50.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Kevin R. Yee | Mara W. Elliott | Alexander Michael Giannetto | Robert M Scherk | Michael S Faircloth | M. Travis Phelps

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Michael Fox's legal representatives built their case on the city’s governmental liability. They maintained that the City of San Diego had a mandatory duty to protect the public from foreseeable risks on its property. The attorneys asserted that the city had either created the dangerous condition or allowed it to persist, and that the city had constructive or actual knowledge of the hazard but took no reasonable steps to fix the issue or provide a warning. This failure, they argued, demonstrated a direct breach of the public entity's duty, making the city legally responsible for all of Fox's resulting harm.

Defense

The defense team, representing the City Attorney’s Office, mounted a comprehensive answer to the complaint, denying the core allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The city broadly denied that any dangerous condition existed as the Plaintiff described. Furthermore, the defense contended that the city was immune from liability under several provisions of the California Government Code. For instance, they argued that any action taken after the injury to correct a problem did not prove the property had been in a dangerous condition when the injury occurred. They also claimed that the Plaintiff’s own negligence or the unforeseeable actions of others had caused or contributed to the accident, arguing the City bore no fault.

Settlement

The civil action resolved before the case could proceed to a jury trial. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and came to an agreement that concluded the dispute without the need for a formal verdict or judgment from the Court. The settlement, which was finalized out of Court, represented a compromise between the Plaintiff's demands for full compensation and the City of San Diego's liability defenses.

The total settlement amount reached in the case was $4,000,000. This payment represented the final and complete resolution of all claims Michael Fox had asserted against the City of San Diego, formally closing the lengthy legal battle stemming from the incident on public property.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com