According to the declaration of Landlord's expert, the drain was imbedded in the walkway in the manner required by industry guidelines and the drain was imbedded one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch below the walkway. The court noted this depth was less than the three-quarter inch depth of the sidewalk crack found to be trivial in Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 413] ( Ursino). As for the surrounding circumstances, the court noted Kasparian "admitted in her deposition that she fell at about one-thirty p.m., on a sunny day with no rain, that the area was well lit, that nothing obstructed her view of the drain, and that there was no debris or other foreign material on the ground."
The law imposes no duty on a landowner — including a public entity — to repair trivial defects, or "to maintain [its property] in an absolutely perfect condition." ( Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398-399 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 413] ( Ursino).) "[A] property owner is not liable for damages caused by a minor, trivial or insignificant defect in property."
Plaintiffs rely primarily on paragraph 1 of § 9.1.4.1 of the Management Policy Handbook; Whisnant v. United States, 400 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2005); Valdez v. UnitedStates, 56 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 1995); and ARA Leisure Services v. United States, 831 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1987). In addition, Plaintiffs assert that the defect is not trivial, citing Urisino v. Big Boy Restaurants of America, (1987) 192 Cal.App. 3d 394, 398. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the primary assumption of risk doctrine is inapplicable, citing Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal 4th 296.
The "trivial defect defense" is available to private, nongovernmental landowners. ( Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398-399 [ 237 Cal.Rptr. 413].) As the Ursino court stated, "persons who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolutely perfect condition."
A. Duty to Maintain the "Trivial Defect" Doctrine "The duty of care imposed on a property owner, even one with actual notice, does not require the repair of minor defects."Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants, 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398 (App. 1987). It is well known that "persons who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in absolutely perfect condition." Id. California courts employ a "trivial defect" doctrine, such that the Court must determine whether the defect in question was trivial as a matter of law.Id. at 398 ("the `trivial defect' defense is determined by a court as a matter of law"); Caloroso v. Hathaway, 122 Cal.App.4th 922, 929 (App. 2004) ("Where reasonable minds can reach only one conclusions — that there was no substantial risk of injury — the [trivial defect] issue is a question of law, properly resolved by way of summary judgment."); Gentekos v. City County of San Francisco, 163 Cal.App.2d 691, 696 (App. 1958) ("Whether a particular condition is a dangerous or defective one is generally a question of fact. Of course the condition must be one that is truly dangerous or defective. If it is trivial then it is neither dangerous nor defective, and, as a matter of law, the ci
(Cadam, at p. 389; see also Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398 (Ursino) ["persons who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolutely perfect condition"].)
But landowners "who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolutely perfect condition." (Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398 (Ursino).) Under the trivial defect doctrine, a "property owner is not liable for damages caused by a minor, trivial or insignificant defect in property."
Thus, "persons who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolutely perfect condition." (Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398 (Ursino).) Courts may "determine 'triviality' as a matter of law rather than always submitting the issue to a jury . . . ."
As the Court of Appeal in Stathoulis explained, "Some defects are bound to exist even in the exercise of reasonable care in the maintenance of property and cannot reasonably be expected to cause accidents." (Stathoulis, at p. 566; accord, Cadam v. Somerset Gardens Townhouse HOA (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 383, 389 (Cadam) [" 'Minor defects such as the crack in [the plaintiff's] walkway inevitably occur, and the continued existence of such cracks without warning or repair is not unreasonable.' "]; Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 397 (Ursino) ["[I]t is impossible to maintain 'heavily travelled surfaces in a perfect condition and . . . minor defects such as differences in elevation are bound to occur in spite of the exercise of reasonable care by the party having the duty of maintaining the area involved.'"].) The trivial defect doctrine applies equally to public and private entities.
The "trivial defect defense" is also available to private, nongovernmental landowners. (Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398-399.) " '[P]ersons who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolutely perfect condition.