|
3893 In a premises liability action based on the claim that a crack in a walkway constituted a dangerous condition, plaintiff had the burden of pleading and proving that the defect was not minor, trivial, or insignificant; as a matter of law, a crack in a walkway resulting in a difference in elevation of seven eighths of an inch was trivial and there was no duty to repair it or warn plaintiff of its existence; expert testimony was properly excluded because the question of whether a condition is dangerous is within the knowledge of lay jurors and judges.CitationCALOROSO v HATHAWAY (Cracked Walkway) 122 CA4 922 [See: Whiting v City of National City 9 C2 163; Fielder v City of Glendale 71 CA3 719]
|
|
