Schall v. Marina Admiralty Co. CA2/2, B312918

Background

Plaintiff Jane Schall, a long-term resident of Mariners Village, fell from a wooden rope‑sided bridge on the complex on November 28, 2017; she regularly used the bridge and testified she had no trouble seeing and was familiar with its configuration.
Schall contends she fell because the rope guardrail was low/defective, there was an approximate three‑inch gap between the rope and the bridge edge, and lighting was inadequate.
Plaintiff’s expert (Burns) inspected the bridge and opined it violated Los Angeles County Building Code §1714, the gap made the edge indistinguishable and the rope would not stop a misstep, and lighting/maintenance were inadequate.
Defendants (owner and manager) submitted a declaration (Wagner) showing the bridges dated to circa 1970, had heavy, long‑term foot traffic with no prior reported falls, and there were alternate routes; they denied notice of any dangerous condition.
The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Burns’s opinions lacked foundation, §1714 did not apply, plaintiff failed to show a dangerous condition or notice, and the bridge’s configuration was open and obvious.
Plaintiff appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment, reasoning no triable issue of dangerous condition existed and, alternatively, the condition was open and obvious.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bridge was a "dangerous condition" posing an unreasonable risk	Bridge was defective: low rope, 3" gap, inadequate lighting, and code violation created unreasonable risk	Bridges existed since ~1970 with heavy use and no prior incidents; plaintiff familiar with bridge; no evidence of unreasonable risk	No. Lack of prior incidents, plaintiff’s familiarity, and absence of evidence created no triable issue that the bridge was unreasonably dangerous
Whether Los Angeles County Building Code §1714 applies or establishes negligence per se	§1714 requires guardrails; violation shows dangerous condition	§1714 covers unenclosed floor/roof openings, landings, balconies—not the bridge here	§1714 does not apply to the bridge; building‑code noncompliance alone did not establish negligence per se
Whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition	Lack of documented maintenance program and inspections meant constructive notice	Wagner’s declaration showed no prior incidents or reports; no notice	Court did not need to resolve notice in depth because no dangerous condition was shown; defendants’ evidence showed no notice to create a triable issue
Whether the condition was open and obvious, excusing any duty to warn or remedy	Lighting and rope/gap made edge hard to perceive at night; plaintiff could not reasonably avoid risk	Plaintiff was familiar with and could see the bridge and had alternative routes; risk was observable	Condition was open and obvious; defendants had no duty to warn or remedy (alternatively, even if dangerous, it was open and obvious)

Key Cases Cited

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment burden shifting standard)
State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.4th 1026 (de novo review of summary judgment and evidence to be considered)
Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (elements of negligence/premises liability are duty, breach, causation)
Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp., 215 Cal.App.3d 1611 (landowner duty and unreasonable risk inquiry)
Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200 (owner liability requires actual or constructive notice of dangerous condition)
Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., 14 Cal.App.5th 438 (open and obvious dangers generally negate landowner duty; exception when necessity compels exposure)
Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix, 224 Cal.App.3d 104 (obvious danger may still present triable issue when plaintiff compelled by necessity to encounter it)
Jones v. Awad, 39 Cal.App.5th 1200 (building‑code deviations do not automatically create triable issues of dangerousness)
Caloroso v. Hathaway, 122 Cal.App.4th 922 (expert testimony tying code noncompliance to dangerousness must have foundation)