Government,
Civil Procedure
Jan. 7, 2025
Close enough doesn't cut it: Why precision matters in government claims
In Hernandez v. City of Stockton, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a pedestrian's lawsuit was barred because his government claim, which cited an "uplifted sidewalk," did not match the actual condition--a hole from an empty tree well--highlighting the need for precise claims against public entities.
Garret D. Murai
Partner Nomos LLP
Garret is the editor of the California Construction Law Blog at www.calconstructionlawblog.com.
Close enough may be fine when it comes to horseshoes and hand grenades, but when it comes to alleging claims against government entities, you may want to be a bit more precise.
In Hernandez v. City of Stockton, 90 Cal.App.5th 1222 (2023), the 3rd District Court of Appeal found that a pedestrian who sued a public entity for personal injuries caused by an "uplifted sidewalk" was barred from pursuing his claim when it was revealed that he ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In