Court Opinion

ID: 9722608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:41:41.475485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:37.793643
License: Public Domain

FLEMING, J.
I concur in the reversal of the summary judgment in favor of the City of Long Beach. However, the dangerous condition complained of existed on property which was privately owned and maintained—not on property owned or maintained by the city. The city’s pleading sets forth, and the photographs in the declarations suggest, that the city did not maintain a sidewalk in this particular area. If this is true, then I do not believe the city can be held liable for a dangerous condition created by an adjacent property owner who has black-topped or paved a portion of his property adjoining the public highway and then allowed that portion to deteriorate. The city can be held liable to a pedestrian for the dangerous condition of adjoining property only if it purported to establish at that location, and did establish, a sidewalk for the general use of the public. (Cf. Beyer v. City of Los Angeles, 229 Cal.App.2d 378 [40 Cal.Rptr. 341].)