A woman who suffered serious injuries after tripping on loose gravel in a parking lot is challenging a court's decision to dismiss her case. Latonya Dawson-Springfield filed a complaint against Mendi Co II, LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on August 2020, alleging negligence and premises liability.
The incident occurred in March 2019 when Dawson-Springfield was attempting to return to her vehicle parked in Mendi Co’s lot. She claims she tripped on an uneven surface covered with loose gravel next to the parking space, which caused her to fall and sustain severe injuries. Dawson-Springfield argued that Mendi Co failed to address or warn about the dangerous condition of their property.
Mendi Co moved for summary judgment after conducting discovery, including Dawson-Springfield’s deposition. They contended that they did not owe her a duty of care because the planter was not inherently dangerous or, alternatively, any danger it posed was open and obvious. The trial court agreed with Mendi Co, ruling that any danger from the planter was indeed open and obvious and thus granted summary judgment in favor of Mendi Co.
Dawson-Springfield opposed this motion by presenting evidence suggesting that the planter was dangerous due to unstable rocks and a steep slope. She also argued that the concrete strip next to the planter invited pedestrians but did not provide an adequate walking surface. Her opposition included a declaration from engineer Philip Rosescu, who stated that the planter did not comply with national safety standards or local municipal codes.
Despite these arguments, the trial court maintained its stance, stating that even if it were foreseeable for people to walk through planters as a shortcut, any danger posed by this particular planter was so apparent that no further warning or remedy was necessary. The court also found Rosescu’s declaration insufficient due to lack of evidentiary basis regarding non-compliance with municipal codes.
Dawson-Springfield appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court erred in its conclusions about the planter's danger being open and obvious. She claimed that while she saw the loose gravel, she did not perceive it as hazardous enough to cause a fall. However, during her deposition, she admitted seeing the gravel but chose to walk through it because it was "the shortest route" back to her car.
The appellate court reviewed whether there were material facts in dispute and if Mendi Co owed Dawson-Springfield a duty of care under premises liability law. The court concluded that any hazard posed by the gravel was indeed open and obvious as per legal standards; therefore, Mendi Co had no duty to warn or remedy it.
Ultimately, Dawson-Springfield could not demonstrate a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Mendi Co owed her such a duty. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Mendi Co.
The attorneys involved were Timothy Vance Milner from The Milner Firm representing Dawson-Springfield and Jeffry A. Miller along with Ernest Slome, Lillian C. Harwell, and Tracy D. Forbath from Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith representing Mendi Co II LLC. The case ID is B326857 under Judge Stephen T. Morgan.