In Huerta v. City of Santa Ana, published August 23, 2019, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 3, ruling 2-1, affirmed summary judgment for the defendant city. Three children, wearing black on Halloween night, were crossing a marked crosswalk leading to an elementary school when a speeding car struck and killed the children. The driver later pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter. The children's parents alleged that the crosswalk was a dangerous condition of public property. They alleged that a large tree at the north end of the crosswalk, lit by a single light at the southern end, cast a shadow rendering the children invisible as they crossed. They also argued that the speed limit of 45 miles per hour (25 miles per hour when children were present) was dangerous because it caused drivers to out-drive the reach of their headlights. The trial court rejected these arguments and granted summary judgment.
The majority agreed. Under case law, absent a statute or charter provision to the contrary, a city has no duty to light its streets. An exception is where a "peculiar condition" of the property makes lighting necessary to make the street safe for travel. The tree was not such a condition. Since the sole light cast that night was on the opposite end of the crosswalk, any shadow the tree cast would necessarily be away from the street and toward the school. It could not have created a shadow over the area of impact. No other peculiar condition required lighting. The posted speed did not encourage drivers to outdrive their headlights; it was only the maximum allowed speed, and did not change the basic speed law that required drivers not to drive at a dangerous speed given the visibility. Further, the driver who struck the girls far exceeded the speed limit.
Comments