Source: http://www.ehrlichfirm.com/news-stories/trivial-defect-doctrine-clinton-ehrlich-2.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:17:04+00:00

Document:
The first case to substantially reduce a plaintiff’s ability to sue for small sidewalk defects was Nicholson v. City of Los Angeles (1936) 5 Cal.2d 361, 364. But even there, the Supreme Court recognized that “a minor defect may well be dangerous to travel.” The Court held, however, that the existence of those defects, though potentially dangerous, was not itself sufficient to impart constructive notice on a municipality.
That approach seems fundamentally contrary to the way the modern trivial-defect doctrine is applied, which absolutely eliminates liability for “minor defects,” irrespective of the issue of notice. That being the case, one might assume that in the decades since its opinion in Nicholson, the Supreme Court has renounced its analysis and expressly crafted a new rule for small defects. But surprisingly, the modern line of trivial-defect authority can all be traced back to an opinion that the Court issued only a year after Nicholson.
It was not until Graves v. Roman (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 584, 585 that an appellate opinion considered the propriety of that rule. The plaintiff in Graves argued that the trivial-defect doctrine originated in cases against municipalities and its application should be limited to the question of constructive notice that arises in that context. But the court rejected that argument and said the “obvious answer” lay in the previous decisions that had, without comment, invoked the trivial-defect concept in cases against private entities where notice was not an issue. Truth had been created through repetition.
In Barone v. City of San Jose (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 284, 289, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the mistake that Justice Carter had pointed out over two decades earlier. Said the Court, “Although a number of cases which set forth [the modern trivial-defect rule] appear to misapprehend the actual holding in Whiting, nevertheless, the rule itself is well established and has been consistently applied.” Put differently, the rule had gained too much judicial inertia for its application to be restrained.
Whether or not Justice Carter’s fears about the rule’s impracticality have been realized is debatable. In some cases, courts have held that defects between a half-inch to an inch high were dangerous conditions. (See, e.g., Rodriguez v. City of Los Angeles (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 463, 467.) In other instances, they have held that defects as large as one and a half inches are trivial as a matter of law. (See, e.g., Marin v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. (Cal. Ct.App. 2006) 2006 WL 3323558.) The Court of Appeal summarized the situation with the observation that “when the size of the depression begins to stretch beyond one inch the courts have been reluctant to find that the defect is not dangerous as a matter of law.” (Fielder v. City of Glendale (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 719, 726.) Yet that standard still leaves many seriously-injured plaintiffs unable to recover.
One potential solution may lie in the approach to duty adopted by Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 119, which could arguably render the triviality of a defect simply one relevant factor to consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a defendant landowner’s conduct. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument in Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants, 192 Cal.App.3d 398-399. But more recently, it has indicated that the trivial-defect doctrine should be “closely scrutinized in view of the ‘marked changes in the law’ made by Rowland v. Christian.” (Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 56, 1343, n. 17.) If the Supreme Court were ever to grant review of that issue, it could provide it an opportunity to overhaul the current system.
Until such a change in the law, defendants will continue to invoke the trivial-defect defense at every opportunity. But within the existing legal framework, there are still several strategies that plaintiffs’ lawyers can employ to maximize their clients’ chances of overcoming the doctrine and allowing their cases to reach trial.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.