A backyard accident has led to a contentious legal battle over property owner responsibilities and the concept of "open and obvious" dangers. On December 2021, Oliver Perez filed a lawsuit against Luisa Haro in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, claiming negligence and premises liability after he fell and broke his leg while climbing a dirt hill in Haro's backyard.
The incident occurred when Perez, who owns a debris removal company called On Time Services, visited Haro's home in Palmdale, California to provide an estimate for hauling away dirt from a trench at the base of a hill. While taking pictures for his records, Perez climbed the hill, lost his footing due to shifting dirt, and fell into the trench, breaking his tibia and fibula. Despite Perez’s claim that Haro negligently maintained her property leading to his injury, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Haro.
Haro argued that she had no duty to protect Perez from risks inherent in his business under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. She also contended that it was not foreseeable that Perez would climb the hill as her backyard was fully visible without doing so. Additionally, she claimed that under the Privette doctrine, landowners are not liable for injuries to independent contractors resulting from known hazards on their premises. The court agreed with Haro’s arguments stating that any danger posed by the hill was open and obvious; thus, there was no duty to warn or remediate it.
Perez opposed this motion by asserting that it was reasonably foreseeable he would climb the hill to provide an estimate and that the unstable earth on the hill was not an open and obvious danger. He also argued against applying the primary assumption of risk doctrine and stated there were triable issues regarding whether the Privette doctrine applied.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision citing precedents like Nicoletti v. Kest (2023) which established that property owners do not have a duty to warn or remediate open and obvious dangers unless it is reasonably foreseeable that occupants or visitors would encounter such dangers out of necessity. The court found no evidence suggesting Perez needed to climb the hill for his job since he admitted he could have taken necessary photos without doing so.
Perez’s attorneys Bradley S. Wallace and Joseph S. Socher from The Wallace Firm contended that summary judgment should not have been granted because there were factual disputes about whether Haro insisted on him starting his inspection before she returned home. However, these disputes were deemed immaterial as they did not affect whether climbing the hill was necessary or if its danger was open and obvious.
The case highlights significant legal principles regarding premises liability and independent contractor safety on private properties. It underscores how courts evaluate duty based on foreseeability and necessity when encountering potential hazards.
The attorneys representing Luisa Haro were Jay S. McClaugherty from McClaugherty & Associates along with Daniel P. Barer and Karen M. Stepanyan from Polak Vida & Barer Law Firm. The case ID is B327746 presided over by Judge Steven T. Morgan.