Slip and fall on wet grass of apartment complex. $2.7M gross; $695K net. Santa Cruz County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  This case arose out of a slip and fall that occurred in a common area at Cypress Point Apartments in Santa Cruz, CA at about noon on March 1, 2014. Plaintiff Nancy Gambino, was living at Cypress Point Apartments with her disabled mother and two small dogs. Defendant, Braddock & Logan (Braddock), managed the 240-unit complex for Cypress Point RE Investors, LLP (Cypress).

  At approximately 8:30 on the morning of March 1, 2014, Nancy Gambino and her two small dogs were walking in the complex when one of Nancy's dogs unexpectedly relieved itself on a grass area next to the concrete walkway, leaving a pile of pet waste. Nancy wanted to pick up the pet waste but she did not have a bag with her at the time. Plaintiff had a limited income and was concerned because Braddock/Cypress had threatened fines of up to $50.00 for tenants that failed to clean up after their pets. She was still several hundred feet from her apartment and was concerned that she might be fined if she left the pet waste to retrieve a bag from home.

  Plaintiff saw a pet waste station over 50 feet away from the sidewalk, in the middle of a grassy area. The pet waste station had a dispenser filled with plastic bags for pet waste. The pet waste station was installed, provided, and maintained by Braddock and/or Cypress in the common area of the complex. Plaintiff could see that, unfortunately, the grass was wet and a large mud puddle had formed at the corner of the grass area. To avoid the mud puddle, plaintiff chose another path across the grass farther to the right, that appeared safe. She started walking on the grass toward the pet waste station. As she got about six to eight steps onto the grass to retrieve a pet waste bag, she noticed that there were holes and indentations in the grass and that her shoes began to sink. Plaintiff then realized that by trying to get to the pet waste station, she had walked into muddy, oversaturated, and poorly drained grass littered with holes and indentations. She became concerned that it might not be safe to walk farther in the swampy landscaping due to the mud, water, and the holes or indentations, so she began to turn around to get back to the concrete walkway. As she turned to get back to the concrete, plaintiff lost her footing and fell to the ground.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  Plaintiff contended that the defendants had improperly designed the area where the pet waste station was located. The location created a foreseeable risk of harm, as it required all tenants, regardless of age and/or ability to travel, across a grassy area to retrieve a pet waste bag. Plaintiff further contended that the defendants knew, or should have known, that the area was littered with hidden indentations and gopher holes, which created a tripping hazard. Plaintiff's experts concluded that the pet waste station should have been placed within 2-3 feet of a concrete hardscape, or in the alternative, a concrete pathway should be laid, creating a walkway out to the pet waste station.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendants contended that the area was not dangerous, and that any problems with the area were open and obvious, as it had rained over 3" in the preceding 4 days before the incident. Defendant contended that plaintiff knew the area was wet, and that she also was familiar with the area, as she had testified to both of the facts in her deposition. Defendant further contended that plaintiff merely "slipped on wet grass." Defendants' experts opined that there was nothing unsafe about the placement of the pet waste station, as these stations are placed "where animals go."