|
P0128 In an action for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition of public property actual notice of which was denied by the public entity defendant, the trial court did not err in permitting plaintiff's attorney to ask public employees if the condition was such that a public employee should have noticed it during the course of a routine inspection, if a public employee would have called for its repair had it been noticed, and if it warranted repair; statements by plaintiff's attorney in closing argument that plaintiff had been "torture[d]" by the dangerous condition and that the jury should "send a message" by inflating its damages award bordered on the improper since there was no claim for punitive damages, but were not sufficiently egregious to require reversal.CitationNISHIHAMA v CITY AND COUNTY OF SF (Crosswalk Pothole) 93 CA4 298 [See: Brokopp v Ford 71 CA3 841]
|
|
