Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christy Andrews alleged that on January 19, 2021, she was injured when a tree branch fell on her near Walnut Street and 241st Street, a point along the border between Lomita and Torrance. She sued both cities for public entity premises liability (Gov. Code, §§ 830, 835) and public entity negligence (§ 815.2), and also sued West Coast Arborists, Inc., whose claims she later dismissed. The tree stood within Lomita's jurisdictional boundaries, but it appeared in Torrance's tree inventory, and Torrance had serviced and maintained it for at least five years before the incident, including work in 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2016. Lomita did not learn the tree was within its borders until after the branch fell, and Torrance informed Lomita in May 2023 that it would no longer maintain the tree.
Lomita moved for summary judgment on undisputed facts: both cities relied on their tree maps and inventories to assign maintenance duties; West Coast Arborists' vice president confirmed the tree was in Torrance's service area and that any problems would have been reported and invoiced to Torrance; Lomita employees had taken no action on the tree since at least 2008; and Lomita's records contained no complaints, work requests, or maintenance records, and Torrance never shared information about the tree. The trial court granted summary judgment for Lomita, finding no triable issue that a Lomita employee created a dangerous condition and no actual or constructive notice, and also finding Andrews could not assert vicarious liability under section 815.2. It separately denied Torrance's motion for summary adjudication, finding triable issues about the tree's condition and Torrance's inspection system; Torrance later settled, and its motion was not at issue on appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Reviewing de novo, the Court of Appeal first rejected Lomita's argument that Andrews forfeited her challenges by providing an inadequate appellate record, because Lomita supplied the missing exhibits and reply papers through a motion to augment, which the court granted. The court addressed only the section 835 premises liability claim, since Andrews did not challenge the judgment on her section 815.2 negligence cause of action. On the subdivision (a) theory, the court held the evidence did not support an inference that Lomita's exclusion of the tree from its inventory created a dangerous condition: Torrance had accepted responsibility and serviced the tree repeatedly, so even assuming Lomita was negligent in failing to realize the tree lay within its boundaries, that negligence did not leave the tree unmonitored or unmaintained. The court liberally construed the evidence in Andrews' favor and resolved all doubts in her favor, as de novo review requires.
On constructive notice under section 835.2, subdivision (b), the court held the evidence did not show Lomita, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the tree's condition and dangerous character. Lomita received no complaints or work requests, Torrance shared no information, and due care did not require Lomita to inspect a tree another city had long maintained. The court rejected Andrews' 'head in the sand' argument, explaining that assenting to another municipality's supervision was not comparable, and that the different outcomes for the two cities were justified because the tree's presence in Torrance's inventory, not Lomita's, was a valid distinguishing basis. The court affirmed the judgment and awarded Lomita costs on appeal; a subsequent order corrected the appellant's surname in three places and denied rehearing with no change in judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A public entity's failure to record a tree within its own boundaries in its inventory does not create a dangerous condition under Government Code section 835, subdivision (a), when a neighboring city actually maintained the tree for years.
- Constructive notice under section 835.2, subdivision (b), requires that the entity should have discovered the condition in the exercise of due care, and due care does not demand inspection of property another municipality has long maintained.
- The absence of complaints, work requests, or information from the maintaining city supported no constructive notice, and the same undisputed evidence established no actual notice, which Andrews did not contest on appeal.
- Different summary judgment outcomes for the two cities were consistent because the tree's placement in Torrance's inventory, rather than Lomita's, was a valid basis for the rulings.
- An inadequate appellate record did not produce forfeiture where the respondent supplied the missing documents through an augmentation motion the court granted.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how California's public entity liability framework allocates responsibility when municipal boundaries and actual maintenance practices diverge. Section 835 liability turns on creation of a dangerous condition or actual or constructive notice, not geographic jurisdiction over the property alone, and a neighboring entity's established maintenance history can defeat both the causation theory and the inference that the property-owning city should have inspected the hazard. The opinion is not certified for publication and may not be cited or relied on except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b). The October 13, 2026 order modified the opinion only to replace 'Anderson' with 'Andrews' in three locations and denied Andrews' petition for rehearing without changing the judgment.