Woman hit by car must take responsibility for jaywalking across five-lane road, California court says

 
Woman hit by car must take responsibility for jaywalking across five-lane road, California court says

 

Legal Newsline
By Daniel Fisher
May 5, 2021

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - A California condominium complex that failed to provide enough parking spaces for visitors isn’t liable for the injuries of a woman who was hit by a car after she parked offsite and attempted to cross a busy five-lane thoroughfare, an appeals court ruled.

While landowners in some cases can be liable for accidents that occur off their property, the Second Appellate District held in an April 30 decision, plaintiff Anaeis Issakhani bears responsibility for jaywalking across the street instead of using a marked pedestrian crosswalk a short distance away.

“It was the visitor’s decision—rather than the landowner’s—to select an offsite parking space on the far side of a busy street,” the appeals court ruled.

Issakhani went to visit a friend at the Shadow Glen condominiums in Los Angeles in June 2014. She followed someone into the parking lot and drove around for two or three minutes without finding a parking spot, then drove off and parked on the other side of the five-lane street. A car hit her as she tried to cross, causing a traumatic brain injury and multiple skull fractures.

Issakhani sued in June 2016, claiming the complex owner failed to maintain the required number of parking spaces and that “created a foreseeable risk of harm” for guests. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the condo complex didn’t owe Issakhani a duty under common law or city ordinance, and she couldn’t prove the complex caused her injuries.

The Second District upheld the dismissal. Shadow Glen was built in 1979 on land that had been rezoned from single- and two-family housing. As a condition of the change to multifamily zoning, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance requiring guest parking of half a space per unit in addition to one space per unit for occupants. The project ultimately was built with 170 parking spots, 13 more than necessary, but only six were marked as “visitor” spaces.

The plaintiff argued the complex was liable because it violated the ordinance requiring 34 guest spots, and it was foreseeable visitors would park offsite and attempt to jaywalk their way back to Shadow Glen. The appeals court said that was too much of a stretch.

“Whether a duty of care exists is not a matter of plucking some immutable truth from the ether,” the appeals court observed. The main question is whether “public policy” supports it. Landowners can be held liable for injuries that occur off their property, for example, such as when an onsite parking lot encourages drivers to make a dangerous left-hand turn on a public street. But the California Supreme Court foreclosed any such duty for failing to provide enough parking in a 2017 decision, Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church, stating categorically that landowners “are not required to provide parking for their invitees.”

The appeals court cited several earlier court decisions that refused to assign liability to companies for traffic injuries plaintiffs tried to blame on lack of parking. While it is foreseeable people will attempt dangerous street crossings if they can’t park their cars on-site, the appeals court concluded, the pedestrian is ultimately responsible for what happens. To rule otherwise, the court said, would require landowners to build expensive underground garages, bulldoze part of their properties, or maybe force employees and residents to park elsewhere to accommodate visitors.

The court also rejected arguments the complex was liable for violating the city ordinance that rezoned the property for development. While some laws and ordinances establish public policies that can give rise to negligence claims if they are violated, this property-specific ordinance doesn’t suffice, the court ruled. The plaintiff’s lawyers attempted to conflate a duty of care, which is between two parties, and a standard of care, which sometimes can be established by an ordinance.


https://legalnewsline.com/stories/594243695-woman-hit-by-car-must-take-responsibility-for-jaywalking-across-five-lane-road-california-court-says