BACKGROUND:
The City’s current municipal code (sections 14.12.010, 14.12.020, and 14.12.030) mirrors the language found in California Streets and Highways Code Section 5610 et seq. regarding private property owners’ duties to maintain sidewalks abutting their property. However, according to California courts, Streets & Highways Code section 5610, and local ordinances containing similar language (such as Cathedral City’s current ordinance):
“impose a duty of repair on the abutting property owners for defects in sidewalks, regardless of who created the defects, but does not of itself create tort liability to injured pedestrians or a duty to indemnify municipalities, except where a property owner created the defect. (emphasis in the original.) See Jordan v. City of Sacramento (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1487 at 1490.
Based on the Jordan case, private property owners have no liability for slip/trip and fall claims on sidewalks abutting their property unless they created the defect (i.e., tree on private property caused cracked sidewalk).
DISCUSSION:
Over the years, the City has experienced several slip/trip and fall claims, and subsequent litigation and settlements related to these injuries have exceed $1.0 million.
The City’s Municipal Code, as written, causes the City to be 100% liable for sidewalk defects unless the private property owner created the defect.
Fortunately, California courts have held that a municipality may alter the principles in Streets and Highways Code section 5610 by ordinance with clear and unambiguous language and impose liability on an abutting property owner for sidewalk injuries. See Jordan at 1491 and Gonzales v. City of San Jose (2004) 125 Cal.App.4 th 1127, 1138- 1139. Please note, however, that the municipal code cannot be used to absolve the City of liability. Under the revised municipal code and Government Code section 835, the City, as well as the abutting property owner, could be held concurrently liable to a plaintiff injured as a result of a dangerous condition on a city-owned sidewalk. As such, the practical effect of the proposed ordinance revision will be that the City and the private property owner will share liability and share settlement costs.
Several other cities have recently revised their Municipal Code in the manner we are describing above, to include Sacramento, San Jose, Sausalito, and Yucaipa. With the exception of Yucaipa, the revised ordinances adopted by these cities have been approved by the courts, which have reviewed the sufficiency of the referenced ordinances. The legality of Yucaipa’s ordinance has not been challenged in court, but its language is very similar to those which have been approved. Yucaipa has just not had a case since their language had been revised.
Based on the above, staff is recommending the City revise its Municipal Code to include a provision that attaches liability to private property owners for sidewalk injury claims.
Attached is the current municipal code sections and the revised changes we recommend.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to updating the ordinance. There is unknown liability exposure for the City should the ordinance remain unmodified.