A jury verdict and judgment in the city’s favor is reversed because the trial court prejudicially erred in giving a special instruction the city proposed (and plaintiff objected to) which told the jury that in determining whether the city’s failure to repaint a faded cross-walk and maintain bushes was negligent, it could not consider the condition of adjacent property or the design of the intersection.  While plaintiff had withdrawn any claim based on defective design of the intersection, the instruction went beyond telling the jury not to impose liability on the city for improper design and conflicted with other instructions that correctly told the jury it could consider the condition of adjacent property in assessing whether the city’s property contained a dangerous condition.

California Court of Appeal, Sixth District (Mihara, J.); December 17, 2018; 30 Cal. App. 5th 269