City of LA says it had no notice of a dangerous sidewalk uplifted by tree roots.
The Case
- Case Name: Payman Heravi v. City of Los Angeles
- Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 20STCV35233
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Wednesday, August 06, 2025
- Date Action was Filed: Tuesday, September 15, 2020
- Type of Case: Dangerous Condition Public Property
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Frederick Shaller
- Plaintiffs:
Payman Heravi, 59
- Defendants:
City of Los Angeles
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: $6,056,052.22
- Net Verdict or Award: $3,028,026.11
- Contributory/Comparative Negligence: 50% on plaintiff, 50% on defendant City of Los Angeles
- Economic Damages:Future: $609,052.22
- Non-Economic Damages:Past: $1,448,000
- Future: $3,999,000
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 10 days
- Jury Deliberation Time: 2 hours
- Jury Polls: 12-0 for all questions, except 11-1 on future noneconomic damages.
The Attorneys
- Attorney for the Plaintiff:
The Simon Law Group by Maximilian Lee, Torrance.
The Dominguez Firm by Analicia Avila, Los Angeles.
- Attorney for the Defendant:
Office of the City Attorney by Richard Loomis, Lilya Dishchyan and James Banh, Los Angeles.
The Experts
- Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Stuart Gold, M.D., orthopedics.
Michael Shapiro, M.D., orthopedic surgery. (Treating physician.)
Tracy Travis, life care planner.
- Ronald Kvitne, M.D., orthopedics.
- Joanne Latham, life care planner.
- Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Gary Gsell, municipal Infrastructure.
Philip Rosescu, safety.
- Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Mark Blanchette, human factors.
Facts and Background
- Facts and Background:Plaintiff, male age 59, tripped and fell on a 2.5” by 3.75” sidewalk defect on December 27, 2019. The city sidewalk uplift had existed for more than two years before the fall. The sidewalk defect was caused by roots from a tree maintained by the City of Los Angeles.
- Defendant City of Los Angeles's Urban Forestry division conducted three separate inspections in 2017 and one inspection in 2019 without any notation of the condition.
- Plaintiff's Contentions:Plaintiff claimed that defendant had notice of the dangerous condition and negligently failed to remedy it. Plaintiff acknowledged comparative negligence and his counsel told the jury to put up to 50% comparative fault on plaintiff.
- Plaintiff contended that the City of Los Angeles controlled the sidewalk, that the subject uplift was a dangerous condition, that his injuries were reasonably foreseeable, and the City of Los Angeles's failure to fix the uplift was unreasonable. Plaintiff contended that he will need a fourth surgery to relieve his shoulder pain and gain some function in his arm.
- Defendant's Contentions:Defendant argued that it lacked notice, the condition was open and obvious, and plaintiff was negligently looking at his cell phone at the time of his fall instead of watching where he was walking.
- Defendant also argued that plaintiff did not need a fourth surgery despite acknowledging that he was in pain due to the fall.
Injuries and Other Damages
- Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:Broken left humerus and torn rotator cuff of left shoulder. Plaintiff required multiple surgeries for his shoulder injuries.
Special Damages
- Special Damages Claimed - Future Medical: $1,015,807.93
Demands and Offers
- Plaintiff §998 Demand: $1,000,000
- Defendant Final Offer before Trial: $300,000
Additional Notes
City of Los Angeles rejected multiple settlement offers made by plaintiff that were below the jury verdict. The jury found comparative fault of 50%, just as the plaintiff's attorney suggested.
Disclaimer
This is not an official court document. While the publisher believes the information to be accurate, the publisher does not guarantee it and the reader is advised not to rely upon it without consulting the official court documents or the attorneys of record in this matter who are listed above.