Personal Injury
It depends on who created or controlled the defect. The city can be liable for a dangerous condition of its sidewalk if its employees created it or it had notice in time to fix it, but a minor or trivial defect does not qualify, and a claim must reach the City Clerk within six months. A neighboring owner can be liable for creating the hazard, for example by altering the sidewalk for its own use.
Last updated October 5, 2026.
Trip and fall cases on public walkways are part of the premises work described on our personal injury page. A sidewalk fall in Glendale raises two questions at once: whether the City of Glendale, as a public entity, is responsible under the Government Claims Act, and whether the owner or occupant of the property next to the sidewalk is responsible under ordinary negligence rules. The answers use different statutes and different deadlines, so both should be checked early.
| Who | When they may be responsible | Source |
|---|---|---|
| The city or other public entity that owns or controls the sidewalk | The sidewalk was in a dangerous condition, the injury was caused by it, the risk was reasonably foreseeable, and either an employee created it or the entity had notice in time to protect against it | Government Code 835; CACI 1100 |
| An owner or occupant of the property next to the sidewalk | It created an unsafe condition on the sidewalk | CACI 1007 |
| An owner who altered the sidewalk for its own benefit | It (or an earlier owner) altered the portion that caused the harm, the alteration benefited only its property and served a purpose different from ordinary sidewalk use, and it failed to use reasonable care in creating or maintaining it | CACI 1008 |
| A person working under a permit | It created or maintained a condition on the sidewalk under a permit or right granted by law or the city | Streets and Highways Code 5610 |
| A private property owner, for a private walkway | It knew or should have known of an unsafe condition and failed to repair it, guard against it or warn | CACI 1000, 1003 |
Government Code section 830(a) defines a dangerous condition as one that creates a substantial, as opposed to a minor, trivial or insignificant, risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable way. Section 830.2 adds the trivial defect rule: a condition is not dangerous if the court, viewing the evidence most favorably to the injured person, decides as a matter of law that the risk was so minor, trivial or insignificant, in view of the surrounding circumstances, that no reasonable person would conclude it created a substantial risk. That is why the size of the defect and the circumstances around it matter so much in sidewalk cases.
Notice is the second hurdle. Under section 835.2, the city had actual notice if it knew of the condition and knew or should have known it was dangerous, and constructive notice only if the condition existed long enough and was obvious enough that the city, using due care, should have discovered it. Evidence on that point includes whether a reasonably adequate inspection system would have revealed it and whether the city ran its system with due care. CACI 1104 lets a jury weigh the practicality and cost of inspection against the likelihood and seriousness of the danger.
Streets and Highways Code section 5610 requires owners of lots fronting a public street to maintain the sidewalk so it will not endanger persons or property. The sections that follow set a repair procedure. Under section 5611, the superintendent of streets notifies the owner or occupant when a sidewalk is out of repair. Section 5614 says the notice must describe the work and warn that if repair is not started within two weeks and carried through, the city will make the repair and the cost will become a lien on the property. Sections 5615 to 5618 then cover the city's repair, a notice of the cost, and a hearing before the city's legislative body.
That repair duty is not the same as liability to a person who falls. The Judicial Council's notes to CACI 1007 explain that an ordinance requiring an abutting owner to maintain the sidewalk creates a duty of care to third persons only if it clearly and unambiguously says so. Whether a local ordinance does that is a question we check case by case.
If a city employee created the condition, notice does not have to be proved separately (Government Code section 835(a)). If a neighboring owner altered the sidewalk, for example with a box, a ramp or a feature serving its property, CACI 1008 may apply, and the notes to that instruction say the duty runs with the land to later owners.
Constructive notice under section 835.2(b) depends on time and obviousness. Earlier complaints, repair requests or records of inspections can show what the city knew and when.
A small height difference can be ruled trivial under section 830.2, but the statute looks at surrounding circumstances, not only size. The Judicial Council's notes to CACI 1007 also explain that walkways need not be kept in perfect condition and that the duty of care does not require the repair of minor defects.
CACI 1102 says whether property is in a dangerous condition is decided without regard to whether the injured person was careful. Carelessness can still reduce damages: under CACI 405, damages are reduced by the injured person's share of responsibility.
A late claim is possible only by written application to the city within a reasonable time, no more than one year after accrual, explaining the delay and attaching the proposed claim (Government Code section 911.4).
A fall on a walkway inside an apartment complex or shopping center is a private premises case with no government claim; our page on when a landlord is responsible for an injury in your building explains those rules. If the owner's insurer then denies or underpays the claim, our page on a claim that is denied or underpaid explains the rules insurers follow.
The City of Glendale's Claim for Damages form asks for the date and time of the incident, the exact address or cross streets, the injuries or damages claimed, why you believe the city is responsible, how the injury happened, any city employee or department involved, whether police or paramedics were called, your doctors and hospitals, and witnesses. It asks you to attach receipts, photographs and medical bills, and both pages must be signed and dated under penalty of perjury. One point needs care: the form has spaces for dollar amounts, but Government Code section 910(f) says that when the amount claimed exceeds $10,000, no dollar amount is included; the claim instead states whether it would be a limited civil case. Our page on injury claims against Glendale or Los Angeles County explains the full claim process.
For example, imagine a hypothetical pedestrian walking on a residential street in Glendale at dusk who catches her foot on a raised sidewalk slab next to a neighbor's newly widened driveway and breaks her wrist. She photographs the slab with a coin beside the lip and writes down the address.
Two paths open at once. Against the city, she must present a claim within six months, and the case would turn on whether the slab was a dangerous condition rather than a trivial one under section 830.2 and whether the city had notice under section 835.2. Against the neighbor, the question is whether the driveway work altered the sidewalk for that property's benefit under CACI 1008, with a two-year deadline. Neither path tells her who will be found responsible; each sets the facts she needs to gather.
No. Government Code section 830.2 says a condition is not dangerous if the risk was so minor, trivial or insignificant, in view of the surrounding circumstances, that no reasonable person would see a substantial risk. The size of the defect, the lighting and other conditions all matter.
If the city may be responsible, yes, within six months. A claim against the homeowner is separate and does not require a government claim. Filing one does not prevent the other.
Not necessarily. A claim goes to the public entity responsible for the property, which may be the state rather than the city. Our page on the personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles County lists the Caltrans claim office and the state's claims program.
If the city does not act within 45 days, the claim is treated as rejected (section 912.4). Without a written rejection notice, section 945.6(a)(2) allows two years from accrual to sue. If a written notice arrives, the six months to sue run from that notice.
The court rules are the same as for other injury cases. Our page on how long an injury case takes in Los Angeles County covers the milestones from service to trial.
Possibly someone other than the city or the homeowner. Streets and Highways Code section 5610 places a like duty on a person who creates or maintains a condition on the sidewalk under a permit or right granted by law or by the city. The notes to CACI 1008 also describe meter boxes and similar devices that benefit the abutting owner as a classic altered-sidewalk case.
We identify every possible defendant, prepare and present the city claim, track the six-month and two-year deadlines, and file suit if a claim is rejected. Our page on the personal injury lawyer in Glendale collects the local offices and reports. Call (818) 244-9000 or request a consultation.
The city claim deadline is six months. Our Glendale team can identify who may be responsible and help you present the claim on time.
Request a Consultation