|
2029 DEPUBLISHED The "trivial defect" doctrine applies to a sidewalk defect only if the reasonable pedestrian would have expected to encounter it, and this may be a question of fact; a trial court's refusal to consider a party's statements in opposition to a motion for summary judgment because those statements were inconsistent with statements made by the same party in a previous deposition unconstitutionally deprived that party of the right to jury trial.CitationLECHLER v CITY & CTY OF SF (Defective Sidewalk) 65 CA4 523 [See: GovC 835; Whiting v City 9 C2 163; D'Amico v Board 11 C3 1; Dolquist v City 196 CA3 261; Ursino v Big Boy 192 CA3 394; Fielder v City 71 CA3 719; Fielder v City 71 CA3 719]
|
|
