SF settles golf injury suit for $75k at Franzone course
Table of Contents
Case Background
A casual stroll at the Lincoln Park Golf Course turned into a legal battle after Theodore Franzone suffered a severe leg injury in late 2023. Franzone filed a personal injury lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco, alleging that the municipal government failed to maintain a safe environment for visitors. The dispute centered on a specific utility cover located on the golf course grounds that Franzone claimed was a "dangerous condition" of public property. The case highlighted the responsibilities of public entities to inspect and secure their grounds to prevent foreseeable harm to pedestrians and patrons.
Cause
The incident occurred on or about August 31, 2023, while Franzone walked near the 16th fairway of the Lincoln Park Golf Course. As he stepped on a utility box cover, the lid unexpectedly flipped up. This mechanical failure caused Franzone’s leg to plunge into the utility hole. Franzone alleged that the City, which owned and managed the course, negligently maintained the utility box by failing to secure the cover properly. He argued that the unsecured lid constituted a hidden hazard that the City knew about, or should have known about, through regular maintenance and inspections.
Injury
The fall resulted in significant physical trauma to Franzone's right leg. Medical evaluations revealed that he sustained a chipped right patella (kneecap) and a torn tendon. The severity of the tendon tear required Franzone to undergo surgical repair. Beyond the immediate physical damage, Franzone claimed the injury caused him substantial shock to his nervous system and ongoing mental and physical pain and suffering.
Damages Sought
Franzone sought a variety of financial remedies to cover the costs associated with his recovery and the impact on his life. His legal team demanded general damages for pain and suffering in an amount exceeding $35,000. Additionally, he sought special damages to cover medical expenses for physicians, surgeons, and other healthcare providers. The complaint also included a request for lost past and future income, citing a diminished earning capacity due to the injury. Finally, he asked the Court to award him the costs of the suit and pre-judgment interest.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The legal proceedings began in April 2024 when Franzone filed his formal complaint. The City and County of San Francisco responded in May 2024, vigorously denying any liability for the accident. The exchange of legal documents set the stage for a debate over municipal immunity, comparative negligence, and the definition of a "dangerous condition" under California law.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Theodore Franzone
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): R. Boone Callaway | Carl Kadlic
Defendant(s): The City & County of San Francisco
· Counsel for Defendant(s): David Chiu | Jennifer E. Choi | Aaron I. Wiener
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Franzone’s attorneys argued that the City bore the ultimate responsibility for the golf course's safety. They claimed that the failure to secure a heavy utility cover in a high-traffic pedestrian area like a golf fairway represented a clear breach of duty. Counsel emphasized that the City had constructive notice of the hazard because a properly maintained inspection system would have caught the loose lid before it could flip and injure a patron.
In contrast, the City’s legal team presented a multi-layered defense. They argued that the utility cover did not meet the legal definition of a "dangerous condition" because it did not create a substantial risk of injury when the property was used with due care. The City’s attorneys also suggested that the risk was "trivial" and that the cost of an inspection system capable of finding such a minute defect would be prohibitively expensive and impractical for the municipality.
Claims
Franzone's primary claim rested on the theory of premises liability and the negligent maintenance of public property. He alleged that the City managed the golf course in a way that allowed a foreseeable hazard to persist. The complaint specifically pointed to the violation of Government Code sections regarding dangerous conditions on public land, asserting that the City’s actions—or lack thereof—directly and proximately caused his patella and tendon injuries.
Defense
The City countered with seventeen affirmative defenses. Their primary strategy involved "comparative negligence," where they argued that Franzone himself might have been careless while walking, which contributed to his fall. They also invoked "assumption of the risk," claiming that anyone playing or walking on a golf course accepts certain inherent dangers of the terrain. Furthermore, the City claimed immunity under various sections of the California Tort Claims Act, arguing that as a government entity, they were protected from certain types of liability unless specific, rigid criteria were met.
Settlement
Before the case reached a full trial or a jury verdict, the parties agreed to resolve the matter through a settlement. The City and County of San Francisco agreed to pay $75,000 to Theodore Franzone to settle all claims related to the August 2023 incident. This settlement allowed both sides to avoid the uncertainty and rising costs of a protracted trial in the San Francisco Superior Court. The payment addressed Franzone's medical bills, the pain and suffering associated with his knee surgery, and his alleged loss of income, while the City avoided a potential finding of liability for a dangerous condition on its public grounds.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com