Dopke v. City of Pasadena CA2/1
B304020
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Nick Dopke died in a collision at Del Mar Blvd. and Meridith Ave. in Pasadena when a vehicle making a left turn struck his westbound motorcycle on May 31, 2015.
- Officer estimated Dopke was traveling ~76 mph in a 35 mph zone; officer opined the collision would have been preventable at the speed limit.
- Plaintiffs (Scott and MaryAnn Dopke) sued the City under Government Code section 835, alleging a dangerous condition at the intersection (parked cars, trees, rerouted traffic for a CicLAvia event impaired sight lines).
- The City moved for summary judgment, submitting declarations from city engineers and traffic experts finding adequate sight distance, no prior complaints or claims, compliance with engineering standards, and a lower-than-average collision rate.
- Plaintiffs opposed but submitted no evidentiary materials (no declarations or deposition excerpts attached to their papers); counsel relied on argument and referenced evidence not in the record.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence of a dangerous condition or of City notice, and failed to create a triable issue of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a triable issue exists that the intersection was a "dangerous condition" under Gov. Code §835 | Rerouting for CicLAvia, parked cars, and trees impaired sight lines and made the intersection dangerous | Engineering and inspection evidence showed adequate sight distance, no design/maintenance defect, and no prior notice or complaints | No triable issue; plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence to create dispute |
| Whether plaintiffs met their burden opposing summary judgment with admissible evidence | Counsel argued jurors could infer danger from facts and testimony (but submitted no evidence) | Plaintiffs failed to cite or submit admissible evidence; separate statement and points/memo are not evidence | Held for City: plaintiff must cite/adduce admissible evidence and did not do so |
| Whether the City had notice or created the dangerous condition (proximate cause/notice) | Plaintiffs contended City rerouting/parking/trees contributed and had constructive notice | City showed no complaints/claims, routine inspections revealed no defects, and post‑accident inspection found no dangerous condition | No triable issue on notice/proximate cause as no evidence raised genuine dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 57 Cal.App.4th 1334 (1997) (three-step summary judgment review articulated)
- Dictor v. David & Simon, Inc., 106 Cal.App.4th 238 (2003) (appellate court reviews the ruling, not the trial court’s rationale)
- Lewis v. County of Sacramento, 93 Cal.App.4th 107 (2001) (appellant must identify record evidence showing triable issues)
- Del Real v. City of Riverside, 95 Cal.App.4th 761 (2002) (appellate court not required to search record for error)
- Guthrey v. State of California, 63 Cal.App.4th 1108 (1998) (points and authorities or separate statement are not evidence)
- Sun v. City of Oakland, 166 Cal.App.4th 1177 (2008) (public streets only required to be safe for reasonably foreseeable careful use)
- Chowdhury v. City of Los Angeles, 38 Cal.App.4th 1187 (1995) (public entity not required to foresee reckless lawbreaking by motorists)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (trial court orders and judgments presumed correct on appeal)