San Francisco Sidewalk Injury Case Settles for $250K
Table of Contents
Case Background
On September 22, 2023, Mary Feller walked along the sidewalk near 3400 Lawton Street in San Francisco. The property belonged to Defendant Tilo Dickopp. The sidewalk section adjacent to the residence was uneven and raised, creating a hazard. The City and County of San Francisco also shared responsibility for the public property. Gordon Feller, Mary’s husband, accompanied her at the time.
Cause
Mary tripped over the raised sidewalk section and fell. She alleged that Dickopp and Does 1–20 had actual notice of the defect, which created an unsafe condition for pedestrians. Records showed the City notified Dickopp of the hazard on January 25, 2022, and again on July 27, 2022. Despite these warnings, no repairs or warnings were provided. Plaintiffs argued that both the property owner and the City failed to act, directly leading to the accident.
Injury
The fall caused Mary to suffer serious injuries requiring medical treatment. Gordon witnessed the incident and claimed emotional distress. The physical injuries left Mary in pain and limited her ability to function. Her husband alleged the incident deprived him of her companionship and support.
Damages
Mary sought compensation for hospital and medical expenses, wage loss, and loss of earning capacity. She also claimed general damages for pain and suffering. Gordon sought damages for loss of consortium and bystander emotional distress. Together, the Plaintiffs argued that the accident placed them under financial and emotional strain.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Mary Feller | Gordon Feller
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Charles Owen Geerhart | Chuck Geerhart
Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco | Tilo Dickopp | Marena Granados-Dickopp | Does 1–20
Counsel for Defendant City and County of San Francisco: Thomas J. Tarkoff | Abigail H. Wald | David Chiu | James F. Hannawalt
Counsel for Defendants Tilo Dickopp | Marena Granados-Dickopp: Melissa L. Grant | Jeanette N. Little & Associates
Claims
The Plaintiffs filed three causes of action. First, they alleged negligence against Dickopp and Does 1–20 for failing to maintain the sidewalk. Second, they alleged premises liability against both Dickopp and the City, asserting the sidewalk defect constituted a dangerous condition. Third, Gordon brought a claim for loss of consortium, seeking damages for the loss of his wife’s companionship and support resulting from her injuries.
Defense
The Defendant issued a general denial. It then raised threshold bars. It cited failure to state a claim and non-compliance with the Government Claims Act. It invoked statutes of limitation, including Code of Civil Procedure §§312, 335 and Government Code §945.6. It asserted broad immunities under the Tort Claims Act, discretionary-act immunity, design immunity, and good-faith conduct. It argued no causation, no dangerous condition, and that any defect was trivial, open, and obvious. It claimed lack of actual or constructive notice and that inspection costs outweighed risks. It also alleged variance from any tort claim.
The Defendant shifted fault and damages. It pled assumption of risk, Plaintiffs’ comparative negligence, and negligence by third parties. It sought contribution, set off, and indemnity, including under Public Works Code §§706, 805. It invoked Proposition 51 to limit non-economic damages severally. It alleged failure to mitigate, estoppel, laches, waiver, and unclean hands. It pleaded Government Code §835 defenses. It reserved the right to add defenses.
Settlement
The parties resolved the dispute through settlement. On agreement, the City and County of San Francisco paid Plaintiffs $250,000 in full and final satisfaction of all claims. The settlement concluded the litigation, eliminated the need for trial, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Court Documents
Court documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com