Legal Opinion

CALOROSO v. Hathaway

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 28, 2004No. B170132PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GRIMES, J. *

BACKGROUND

This appeal presents the question whether the trial court correctly determined as a matter of law that a private landowner owed no duty to pedestrians to either warn them of a trivial defect in his walkway or to repair it. Plaintiffs/appellants Josephine Caloroso and Joseph Caloroso seek reversal of a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant/respondent Larry Hathaway (Hathaway) in this premises liability and loss of consortium case that arose when Mrs. Caloroso tripped over a slight crack in a walkway in front of Hathaway’s home. In the complaint, the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Whiting v. City of National CityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Barrett v. City of ClaremontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Fielder v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. People v. BradleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  3. Kasparian v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. Stathoulis v. City of MontebelloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Cadam v. Somerset Gardens Townhouse HOACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API