CALOROSO v. Hathaway
California Court of Appeal
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
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Whiting v. City of National CityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Barrett v. City of ClaremontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Fielder v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- People v. BradleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Kasparian v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- Stathoulis v. City of MontebelloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Cadam v. Somerset Gardens Townhouse HOACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.