In Hernandez v. City of Stockton, published April 28, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant city. The plaintiff tripped and fell on a city street. He presented a claim to the city alleging that he sustained injuries when he tripped and fell due to a "dangerous condition" on the city-owned "sidewalk surface," which he identified as an "uplifted sidewalk." A liability claims investigator for the city inspected the sidewalk near the address given in the claim. He was unable to locate any uplifted sidewalk. The city sent the plaintiff's counsel a notice of insufficiency, stating that the city was unable to determine the loss location. The notice requested photos, a map, or diagram showing the exact loss location, and advised the plaintiff he could submit an amended claim within six months of the incident. The plaintiff did not respond to the notice. After his claim was rejected, the plaintiff filed suit. In his complaint, he alleged that the "sidewalk surface" had a "dangerous condition" that created an unspecified hazard. During a deposition, the plaintiff testified he tripped and fell when he stepped into a tree well that had no tree in it. In his deposition, he agreed that his fall was not caused by an "uplifted sidewalk." The city moved for summary judgment, on the ground that the plaintiff was suing on a factual basis never reflected in his claim. The plaintiff responded that his claim's statement that he tripped and fell due to "an uneven sidewalk surface" was the "factual equivalent" of what his claim stated, and that his complaint's allegations did not alter the theory of the nature of the dangerous condition. The trial court granted the city's motion, ruling the claim and lawsuit were not based on the same factual basis.
The appellate court agreed. A complaint is subject to dismissal if it alleges a factual basis for recovery that is not "fairly reflected" in the government claim. The plaintiff's claim specifically and solely identified an "uplifted sidewalk" as the dangerous condition that caused his injuries. His action premised liability on a different dangerous condition–a hole crated by an empty tree well. Such a variance subverts the purpose of the Government Claims Act: giving the public entity an opportunity to investigate and evaluate its potential liability and, where appropriate, avoid litigation by settling meritorious claims. The complaint did not merely elaborate upon or provide further detail to a government claim based on the same fundamental facts; it premised liability on an entirely different factual basis. The court rejected plaintiff's contention of substantial compliance. Further, the fact that a city employee testified he knew the claim was based on plaintiff tripping on an empty tree well did not satisfy the claim requirement. The claim presentation requirement must be satisfied even if the public entity actually knows the circumstances surrounding the claim. Further, the employee only inspected the property after the claim was rejected, and testified only after the plaintiff disclosed in deposition that he tripped over an empty tree well.
Leave a Reply