A California state court judge has granted a motion for summary judgment filed by LAFC Partners (LAFC), the ownership group of MLS team Los Angeles FC, which had been named as a defendant after a patron tripped, fell, and sustained injuries while walking to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.
The plaintiff in the case, Maria Diaz Morales, alleged that on August 18, 2022 she tripped over “metal strip car stoppers,” which were located on South Coliseum Drive.
On February 24, 2023, Morales sued, asserting causes of action for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835, vicarious liability, premises liability, and negligence against Defendants County of Los Angeles (County), City of Los Angeles (City), State of California (State), Major League Soccer, LLC (MLS), Exposition Park, LAFC, and Does 1 through 100.
Subsequently, the plaintiff amended her complaint, twice. All but LAFC were dismissed from the case at the plaintiff’s request.
In analyzing the merits of LAFC’s motion to summary judgment, the court noted that LAFC does not own or control the internal street within Exposition Park, where the incident occurred. Specifically, “LAFC’s leased property does not include the Coliseum where Plaintiff was headed or the incident area with the stoppers where Plaintiff tripped and fell,” wrote the court. “LAFC was not involved in installing the metal stoppers on Exposition Park Drive.”
Furthermore, “LAFC has not taken part in the installation, maintenance, or upkeep of the anti-reversal grates at issue in this case, which are located on South Coliseum Drive. On August 18, 2022, LAFC did not hold or sponsor an event” being attended by the plaintiff.
“The general rule governing duty is set forth in Civil Code section 1714: ‘Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.’ (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a).) This establishes what the California Supreme Court has described as the ‘default rule’ that every person has a legal duty ‘to exercise, in his or her activities, reasonable care for the safety of others.’ (Brown, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 214.)
“Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Annocki, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 37.) If a dangerous condition exists, the property owner is ‘under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for their [customers’] use or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm.’ (Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 446.) Although a business owner ‘is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons, the owner does owe them a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe.’ (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.)
“The duty to keep premises safe (or warn) generally applies to areas that a defendant owns, operates, occupies, manages, or controls. ‘A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control.’ (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134.) ‘Where the absence of ownership, possession, or control has been unequivocally established, summary judgment is proper.’ (Ibid.) The defendant need not have a legal right to possession of the premises; it is sufficient if there is a showing that the defendant exercised control over the premises in which the dangerous or hazardous condition was present. (Alcarez v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162-1163.) Liability can also extend to an injury that occurs offsite – if it is caused by a dangerous or hazardous condition on property that is owned, possessed, or controlled by defendant. (Kesner, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 1159.)
“Here, LAFC has presented evidence that it did not own, possess, or control the area in which Plaintiff’s accident occurred. (DUMF, Nos. 1-5, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, 20; Thomas Decl., ¶¶ [*12] 3-9.) This is sufficient to meet LAFC’s initial burden, as a defendant moving for summary judgment to show ‘that one or more elements of the cause of action … cannot be established.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)”
Maria Diaz Morales v. County of Los Angeles, et al.; Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; 2025 Cal. Super. LEXIS 23734 *; 2025 LX 265465; 5/29/25
