Mixon v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
207 Cal. App. 4th 124
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Eight-year-old Tyler Mixon was struck in a marked crosswalk at 3rd and R Streets, Eureka, by a motorist not yielding to pedestrians; family of Jeremy Mills witnessed the incident.
- Intersection had a marked crosswalk but no traffic signal and no overhead streetlights; nearby areas were brighter due to bridge and other lighting.
- Plaintiffs sued the State and PG&E alleging a dangerous condition (Gov. Code, § 835) and inadequate lighting, respectively.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for both State and PG&E; appeals were consolidated and affirmed.
- The court analyzed whether the intersection presented a dangerous condition and whether the State had a duty to light the area or PG&E had a duty to provide brighter lighting; underpinning authorities include Gov. Code § 835 and related interpretations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 3rd and R Streets intersection a dangerous condition under Gov. Code § 835? | Mills asserts multiple features created danger. | State argues no dangerous condition from these features. | No dangerous condition; plaintiffs failed to show a substantial risk. |
| Did lack of a traffic control signal render the intersection dangerous? | Absence of signal contributed to risk. | Lack of traffic signals does not by itself create a dangerous condition. | Not a dangerous condition; Gov. Code § 830.4 precludes liability for mere absence of signals. |
| Do warning signs and crosswalk markings create a dangerous condition? | Signs/markings were inadequate or distracting. | No liability for failure to provide signs/markings described in Vehicle Code unless necessary for a hidden danger. | Absence or presence of signs/markings did not establish a dangerous condition. |
| Did crosswalk markings (parallel lines) or the road grade create a dangerous condition? | Minimalist crosswalk pattern and grade changes increased risk. | Crosswalk design and minor grade change do not create a dangerous condition. | No dangerous condition; pattern and grade did not constitute substantial risk. |
| Is PG&E liable for insufficient or misdirected lighting at the intersection? | PG&E's lighting placement created unsafe contrast and visibility. | Public utilities have no duty to light streets; White controls; no duty to brighten lighting. | PG&E not liable; public utilities share the same no-duty rule as public entities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Antenor v. City of Los Angeles, 174 Cal.App.3d 477 (Cal. App. 1985) (no duty to light streets absent a preceding dangerous condition)
- Plattner v. City of Riverside, 69 Cal.App.4th 1441 (Cal. App. 1999) (darkness alone not a dangerous condition; no duty to light crosswalks)
- Cerna v. City of Oakland, 161 Cal.App.4th 1340 (Cal. App. 2008) (dangerous condition requires physical defect; lighting alone not enough)
- Washington v. City and County of San Francisco, 219 Cal.App.3d 1531 (Cal. App. 1990) (warning signs may be required for concealed dangers; absence of signs not per se dangerous condition)
- White v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 25 Cal.App.4th 442 (Cal. App. 1994) (public utilities not liable for lack of lighting absent dependency on lighting to avoid condition)