Cadam v. Somerset Gardens Townhouse HOA
132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 617
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Cadam leased a Somerset Gardens townhome and used a cement walkway from the driveway to the front door.
- On Oct. 19, 2006, Cadam slipped on a walkway separation while discussing irrigation with a gardener.
- The separation measured three-fourths to seven-eighths inch in height and the walkway was clean and dry in bright daylight.
- Cadam sustained multiple injuries and later had six surgeries over two and a half years; she was 63 at the time.
- Cadam sued Somerset, GM, and Inland Pacific Builders for premises liability; the case proceeded to trial.
- The jury awarded Cadam $1,336,197 with 50/50 fault between Somerset and GM; the court then granted JNOV and limited a new-trial order to damages for non-negligence; Cadam appeals
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defect was trivial as a matter of law | Cadam argues defect was non-trivial given height and circumstances | Cadam (defendants) contend defect trivial; height and conditions show danger | Yes; defect deemed trivial as a matter of law |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the trivial defect defense to grant JNOV | Cadam asserts genuine dispute on duty of care over minor defect | Somerset/GM argue no quantity of evidence could overcome trivial defect rule | Yes; court affirmed JNOV finding defect trivial and thus no liability |
| Whether the alternative new-trial order on damages was proper | Cadam seeks new trial on damages if apportionment/nominal fault unclear | Defendants contest damages remittitur/award as improper | Not resolved on appeal; issue left for potential later determination |
| Whether damages or apportionment were excessive on cross-appeal | Cadam cross-appeal seeks higher damages | Somerset/GM contend damages excessive | Not resolved; cross-appeal and damages review left for separate determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Caloroso v. Hathaway, 122 Cal.App.4th 922 (Cal.App.4th 2004) (minor defect defense; no liability for minor cracks)
- Stathoulis v. City of Montebello, 164 Cal.App.4th 559 (Cal.App.4th 2008) (whether a defect is trivial may be decided when no conflict in evidence)
- Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants, 192 Cal.App.3d 394 (Cal.App.3d 1987) (duty to repair minor defects not required)
- Fielder v. City of Glendale, 71 Cal.App.3d 719 (Cal.App.3d 1977) (triviality determined by common knowledge; edge case limits)
- Clark v. City of Berkeley, 143 Cal.App.2d 11 (Cal.App.2d 1956) (cumulative perils displaced by trivial defect rule)
- Laurenzi v. Vranizan, 25 Cal.2d 806 (Cal.S. 1945) (inspector’s opinion can preclude finding defect trivial)
- Aitkenhead v. City & County of S. F., 150 Cal.App.2d 49 (Cal.App.2d 1957) (review in light of surrounding circumstances to determine triviality)