Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co.
210 Cal. App. 4th 962
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- LAD designed the Main Stage theatre for SMCCD and observed its construction as part of the project.
- Construction of the Main Stage was completed on June 15, 2006, with public use occurring thereafter.
- Neiman was injured on May 30, 2008 inside the Main Stage stairs during a scheduled performance.
- Neiman amended her complaint, asserting a dangerous condition of public property and negligence by LAD as designer/observer.
- LAD moved for summary judgment arguing the completed and accepted doctrine barred liability for patent defects, and Neiman argued latent/patent issues and duties during construction.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for LAD, concluding the completed and accepted doctrine applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the completed and accepted doctrine bar Neiman's claim against LAD? | Neiman contends triable issues exist regarding completion and defect type. | LAD established completion/acceptance; the defect was patent and thus not actionable. | Yes; doctrine applies and bars Neiman's claim. |
| Is the alleged lack of contrast marking stripes a latent or patent defect? | Neiman argues the defect was latent, not readily observable. | Stripes missing were patent and readily observable; inspection would reveal the defect. | Patent defect as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co., 47 Cal.App.4th 1461 (Cal. App. 1996) (patent vs latent, owner's duty to inspect; striped safety features)
- Jones v. P.S. Development Co., Inc., 166 Cal.App.4th 707 (Cal. App. 2008) (completed and accepted doctrine; owner inspection)
- Montijo v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351 (Cal. App. 1963) (architects' duties; latent vs patent defects considerations)
- S Sanchez, 47 Cal.App.4th 1461 (Cal. App. 1996) (see Sanchez discussion above)