Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. Superior Court
173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 407
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- MTA completed the 4th & Hill Metro Rail station in 1993; Jose Madrigal fell on a stairwell there in 2011 and sued MTA for negligence and dangerous condition of public property.
- MTA cross-complained against multiple design/construction entities, including Delon Hampton & Associates (Hampton), alleging defective design/construction (banister too low; stairwell too narrow).
- Hampton demurred, asserting the four-year statute of limitations in Code Civ. Proc. § 337.1 for patent construction defects barred MTA’s cross-complaint; Hampton also sought judicial notice of the project’s March 15, 1993 notice of completion.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer, finding the alleged defects were not patent as a matter of law; MTA later filed an amended cross-complaint that maintained the same allegations.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo whether the alleged defects were patent and whether the completed-and-accepted doctrine applied.
- The Court of Appeal held the alleged defects (low banister; narrow stairwell) were patent and therefore barred by § 337.1; it also held the completed-and-accepted doctrine shifted liability to the owner for patent defects. The petition for writ of mandate was granted, directing the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MTA’s cross-complaint is barred by the § 337.1 four-year limitations period for patent construction defects | The defects caused Madrigal’s injury and give rise to indemnity/contribution claims against Hampton despite the passage of time | The alleged defects (low banister, narrow stairwell) are patent and were discoverable more than four years after substantial completion, so § 337.1 bars the claims | Held: Defects are patent; § 337.1 bars MTA’s cross-complaint against Hampton; demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend |
| Whether the defects are patent or latent | MTA suggested condition might require technical code analysis or involve manufacturing defect (arguing latent aspects) | Hampton argued defects were open and apparent (patent) upon reasonable inspection or ordinary use | Held: Height of banister and stair width are open, apparent, and discoverable by reasonable inspection/use — patent as a matter of law |
| Applicability of the completed-and-accepted doctrine | MTA argued owner acceptance not dispositive or that defects fall outside the doctrine | Hampton argued that once owner accepted completed work, liability for patent defects shifts to owner and contractor is insulated for patent defects | Held: Doctrine applies; because defects were patent and the owner accepted the work (public use), liability shifted to MTA |
| Whether manufacturing-defect exception to § 337.1 saves MTA’s claims | MTA raised manufacturing-defect line from case law to avoid § 337.1 bar | Hampton noted the cross-complaint pleads design/construction defects, not a manufacturing-defect claim | Held: Manufacturing-defect exception not implicated because pleading alleges design/construction defects, so it does not defeat demurrer |
Key Cases Cited
- Sevilla v. Stearns-Roger, Inc., 101 Cal.App.3d 608 (1980) (statute of limitations in § 337.1 protects defendants from extended liability)
- Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.App.4th 1326 (1996) (defines patent deficiency as discoverable by reasonable inspection; objective "average consumer" test)
- Preston v. Goldman, 42 Cal.3d 108 (1986) (distinguishes patent versus latent defects; patent discoverable by ordinary care)
- Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 47 Cal.App.4th 1461 (1996) (completed-and-accepted doctrine shields contractors from liability for patent defects once owner accepts work)
- Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co., 210 Cal.App.4th 962 (2012) (absence of obvious stair contrast markings was an obvious, patent condition)
- The Luckman Partnership, Inc. v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.4th 30 (2010) (spacing of guardrails is obvious; dangers are matters of common experience — patent)
- Mills v. Forestex Co., 108 Cal.App.4th 625 (2003) (latent vs. patent distinctions; manufacturing-defect line discussed)
- Hale v. Depaoli, 33 Cal.2d 228 (1948) (railing that gave way due to concealed defects was latent)
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (2002) (standard of review on demurrer; treat demurrer as admitting properly pleaded facts)