San Francisco Sidewalk Hazard Lawsuit Ends in Settlement
Table of Contents
Case Background
A San Francisco resident, Jane Gazzola, brought a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco and Wilad Properties, LLC, after suffering a serious fall on a public sidewalk. The complaint, formally filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, named the two primary Defendants along with several "Does," or currently unknown parties, to account for all potential responsible entities. Gazzola had sought financial compensation for the injuries and losses she incurred following the incident.
The legal action centered on a claim that a specific stretch of public sidewalk referred to in Court documents as the "Subject Sidewalk" maintained a dangerous and hazardous condition. The City and County of San Francisco formally responded to the allegations with a comprehensive denial of all wrongdoing, pushing the case toward a full litigation track until the parties reached a settlement agreement in the spring of 2025.
Cause
The core issue that drove the complaint involved what Gazzola’s legal team identified as an unmarked and hazardous defect in the pavement. Specifically, the Plaintiff contended that unguarded, exposed metal anchor bolts, which had once secured a light standard or similar fixture, protruded dangerously from the sidewalk surface. Gazzola’s complaint asserted that this protrusion created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of tripping for pedestrians using the sidewalk in a reasonable manner. The legal claims were formally classified as Premises Liability and General Negligence, focusing on the Defendants’ alleged failure to maintain safe public pathways.
Injury
While the full extent of the Plaintiff's medical details remained confidential during the proceedings, Court documents broadly described the incident as having caused Jane Gazzola to trip and fall on the sidewalk. This resulted in serious personal injuries. The legal filing noted that these injuries were a direct consequence of the Defendants' failure to repair, correct, or barricade the exposed hazard. As a result of the fall, the Plaintiff incurred substantial damages, including medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering.
Damages Sought
The case was filed under the Court's Unlimited Jurisdiction designation, meaning the Plaintiff had placed a value on the total damages sought that exceeded $25,000. This high threshold indicated the substantial nature of the injuries and the monetary losses Gazzola claimed she had sustained. The final damages sought included compensation for all past and future medical care, lost wages and earning capacity, and general damages related to her physical pain and emotional distress.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Jane Gazzola
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Steven A. Fabbro, Esq.
Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco, Wilad Properties, LLC
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Natassia Kwan | James F. Hannawalt | David Chiu | James F. Hannawalt | Margaret S. Schroeder
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Jane Gazzola’s legal strategy consistently focused on the theory that the City and Wilad Properties, LLC, possessed an obligation to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition for public use. Her counsel argued that the Defendants either had actual notice of the protruding anchor bolts meaning they definitively knew about the hazard or constructive notice, meaning the condition had existed for a sufficient period of time that they reasonably should have discovered and fixed it. The Plaintiff’s claim maintained that the Defendants had unreasonably failed to fulfill their duty to repair, correct, or barricade the danger, directly causing the trip and fall incident.
Defense
The City and County of San Francisco mounted a vigorous defense, issuing an Answer to the Complaint in January 2024 that flatly denied nearly every material allegation. The City’s legal team claimed that neither the City nor its employees or agents had acted negligently. Furthermore, they asserted that the sidewalk was not, in fact, dangerous or defective, or if it were, that the danger was open and obvious to any reasonable person. Crucially, the defense introduced several affirmative defenses. Among these, the City alleged that the Plaintiff herself bore responsibility for the incident, arguing that Jane Gazzola's own carelessness or negligence had caused or contributed to her injuries, thereby diminishing or entirely eliminating the City's liability. The Defendants had therefore requested that the Court bar or reduce any recovery by Gazzola.
Settlement
The civil litigation process concluded not with a jury verdict but through a confidential agreement reached by all parties. On April 18, 2025, just months after the City had filed its formal answer to the complaint, the parties notified the Superior Court that they had reached a complete resolution to the dispute. The filing of the Notice of Settlement of Entire Case signaled the end of the lawsuit, precluding the need for a trial that would have involved complex testimony and a public determination of fault.
Through mediation and negotiation, the Defendants agreed to pay a total of $128,000 to Jane Gazzola to settle all claims against them arising from the premises liability incident. This confidential settlement represented a final, albeit negotiated, admission of liability by the Defendants. The settlement amount compensated the Plaintiff for her medical expenses, lost earnings, and the pain and suffering she sustained. Upon receiving the notice, the Court immediately set a deadline for the Plaintiff to file a request for dismissal, officially closing the case file following the financial transaction. The settlement allowed all parties to avoid the considerable financial risks and uncertainty that a multi-day jury trial would have entailed.
Court documents