Aura v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8, B268252

On Nov. 13, 2013, Aura was struck and seriously injured while crossing a marked crosswalk at ~11:00 p.m.
Aura had submitted a $1,000,000 Government Code claim to the City; it was denied and he sued under Gov. Code § 835 for a dangerous condition of public property.
Complaint alleged a single overhanging globe streetlamp was hidden by overgrown tree branches, leaving the crosswalk dark and pedestrians unobservable to motorists.
The City demurred, arguing it has no duty to provide or maintain street lighting and that lack of light is not a physical dangerous condition of property.
Trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend; Aura appealed, arguing the demurrer improperly resolved factual issues and that leave to amend should have been granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unlit crosswalk (lamp obscured by tree branches) constitutes a "dangerous condition" under Gov. Code § 835	Aura: obscuring branches made the streetlight ineffective, creating a dangerous condition that caused his injury and the City knew or should have known	City: no general duty to light streets or maintain lighting; darkness alone (or obscured lamp) is not a dangerous physical condition	Court: Affirmed. Lack of light (even from obscured lamp) does not, by itself, create a dangerous condition under § 835
Whether factual issues preclude decision on demurrer	Aura: existence of dangerous condition is a factual question for trial	City: legal precedent holds lighting duty is not imposed and question is one of law	Court: precedent controls; demurrer properly sustained as matter of law
Whether other factors make absence of lighting actionable	Aura: cited cases where lack of light plus other hazardous factors created liability	City: this case alleges only obscured lamp/darkness, no additional peculiar hazardous condition	Court: No other factors pleaded; plaintiff’s cited cases distinguishable; liability not shown
Whether leave to amend should have been granted	Aura: should have been allowed to amend to cure pleading defects	City: plaintiff failed to propose any viable amendment	Court: Plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonable possibility of curing defect; denial of leave proper

Antenor v. City of Los Angeles, 174 Cal.App.3d 477 (1985) (municipality generally has no duty to light streets; duty may arise only from peculiar conditions making lighting necessary)
Plattner v. City of Riverside, 69 Cal.App.4th 1441 (1999) (failure to maintain streetlight over a crosswalk does not create a dangerous condition as a matter of law)
Mixon v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 207 Cal.App.4th 124 (2012) (public entity with no general duty to light streets cannot be held liable for inconsistent lighting levels between locations)
Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (2002) (demurrer properly sustained where plaintiff cannot point to any defective aspect of the purely physical condition of the property)