San Diego Pays $75K to Settle Dangerous Property Lawsuit

Case Background

A civil lawsuit filed against the City of San Diego concerning public property safety reached a quiet resolution, concluding with a financial settlement instead of a trial. Plaintiff Rakewon Emmanuel Cook had sued the City, alleging that a dangerous and defective condition on public property had caused him injury. The complaint, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, in December 2023, began the legal action, asserting that the City knew about the unsafe condition but had failed to fix it or warn the public.

Cause

The cause of the lawsuit focused on the City’s alleged failure to maintain its public property in a safe condition. Mr. Cook claimed that the City had negligently created or allowed a dangerous condition to exist on property it controlled. Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that even after the City became aware of the hazard having had “actual and/or constructive notice” it failed to take timely action to protect the public from the risk. The lawsuit ultimately charged the City with several different forms of negligence and statutory liability for allowing this unsafe environment to persist.

Injury

Mr. Cook sustained personal injuries because of the alleged dangerous condition. Although the complaint did not detail the specific nature of his injuries, it asserted that the injuries had caused him physical pain, discomfort, and mental suffering. The Plaintiff had been forced to seek medical care, treatment, and attention, incurring expenses for these services. The injuries also resulted in an immediate loss of earnings and diminished his ability to earn money in the future. He stated that he had undergone great hardship and continued to suffer due to the City's failure to maintain safe public property.

Damages Sought

The Plaintiff sought comprehensive financial compensation to cover all the losses he had suffered and would continue to suffer. He requested general damages to compensate him for the pain, suffering, and emotional distress the injuries had caused him. He also demanded specific compensation for his medical expenses, both past and future. Furthermore, Mr. Cook sought recovery for the loss of his past and future earnings, including compensation for his impaired earning capacity. The complaint indicated that the total damages would exceed $25,000, classifying the case as an unlimited civil action.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit entered the initial phase of litigation, with the City responding to the allegations by formally denying liability. This setup a legal battle over whether the City had acted responsibly in managing its public property before the parties moved toward resolution.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Rakewon Emmanuel Cook

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Marlea Dell'Anno

Defendant(s): City of San Diego | DOES 1-25, Inclusive

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Mara W. Elliott | M. Travis Phelps | Aaron B. Markowitz

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

Mr. Cook's legal team asserted four distinct legal claims against the City. First, they claimed that the City had negligently created a dangerous public property condition or that the condition had become dangerous through negligence, violating state law. Second, they maintained that the City knew or should have known about the hazard in time to take preventative measures but had failed to protect the public. Third, they alleged general negligence, meaning the City had simply failed to exercise reasonable care, directly causing Mr. Cook’s injuries. Finally, they claimed statutory liability, asserting the City's responsibility for the actions of any independent contractors that had created the hazardous condition.

Defense

The City of San Diego strongly denied every claim of negligence and liability in its Answer. The City maintained that it had consistently acted reasonably and had exercised due care in the maintenance of its public property. The City's legal team asserted that no dangerous condition existed on the property and that the public use of the area had been neither unreasonable nor foreseeable. The defense raised several affirmative defenses, including the assertion that Mr. Cook himself had acted negligently, either causing or contributing to his own injuries. Additionally, the City claimed that Mr. Cook had failed to meet several prerequisite legal obligations, such as the timely presentation of a formal claim to the City before filing the lawsuit, which, they argued, should have barred the entire action.

Settlement

The legal dispute did not proceed to a jury trial but concluded with a negotiated settlement.

The parties, having exchanged initial filings and evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, reached a final out-of-Court agreement. The City of San Diego had agreed to pay Mr. Cook the amount of $75,000 to resolve all claims he had brought regarding the personal injuries he sustained on public property. This financial payment legally concluded the entire lawsuit, terminating the dispute and relieving the City of any further liability in the matter.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com