1LAW Logo

Injured On A Marked Construction Route At A Public Harbor

Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced California attorney, with no obligation.

JV

Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*

Founding Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed March 28, 2024

Legal Inquiry

Consumer Legal Issue

While walking at a public harbor during construction I followed the designated route. There was a piece of buckled wood where to walk on. I tripped on the buckled edge and fell on concrete, got 3 stitches on head and my arms hurt to lift and my knees were scraped up.

Attorney Answer

Being routed along a marked path is the strongest fact you have — the point of a designated route is that someone took responsibility for it being safe to walk. The complication is that a construction site usually has more than one party responsible, and they do not share the same deadline.

Start with who. A public harbor is normally controlled by a public entity — a county, a district, or a city. A contractor doing the work is not. That distinction sets the calendar. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) requires a claim for death or for injury to a person or to personal property against a public entity to be presented not later than six months after the cause of action accrues: a written claim, delivered to the entity, before any lawsuit, as Cal. Gov't Code § 945.4 separately requires. A claim against a private contractor is not subject to that rule and instead runs on Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1, which allows two years for an action for injury caused by another's wrongful act or neglect. Six months against one, two years against the other, on the same fall.

Work to the six months. If it turns out the contractor is the responsible party, you have lost nothing by having presented a claim to the entity as well; if you work to two years and the entity was responsible, the claim is gone.

On responsibility itself, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) provides that everyone is responsible 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. That is the rule for the contractor who laid the temporary walkway and for whoever inspected it. A claim against a public entity for an injury caused by the condition of its property also carries its own statutory elements, including that the entity knew or should have known of the danger with time to correct it. Buckled temporary boarding on a route the public was directed onto is close to the center of both.

Expect the argument that you should have seen it. In California that is a discount, not a defense. Applying § 1714(a), the Supreme Court in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), described a pure comparative system in which a plaintiff's recovery is reduced only to the extent his own lack of reasonable care contributed to his injury.

As for what is recoverable, Cal. Civ. Code § 3333 sets the measure: the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused, whether it could have been anticipated or not. The stitches, the arms and the knees all count, and so does anything that turns out to be longer lasting.

What you can do

1. Go back and photograph the route now — the buckled board, the barriers, the signage directing pedestrians, and any contractor name or permit posted on the fencing. Record the date.

2. Write down the contractor's name and any permit number from those postings. That is what identifies the second potential defendant.

3. Ask the harbor's administration office for its claim form and present a written claim. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) gives six months from accrual and there is no fee.

4. Ask the entity in writing to preserve incident reports, the pedestrian routing plan, inspection records and any security video from that date, and ask for prior complaints about the same walkway.

5. Get seen about the arms if lifting still hurts, keep every medical record and bill, and keep the discharge paperwork from the stitches.

6. Ask a local attorney which entity controls that harbor and how to claim against the entity and the contractor at the same time.

Most lawyers offer a brief initial call at no cost, and a few minutes on your specific facts is worth more than any general guidance, including this page.

⏱ Time limits apply. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) governs any claim against the public entity: six months from accrual to present it. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 gives two years against a private contractor. Which applies depends on who was responsible for the walkway, which is exactly what is not yet known — so treat the six months as the deadline and have a local attorney check the dates now.

Cases Cited

Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.

  • Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978) — Cal. Supreme Court
    Pure comparative negligence — recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's own want of care rather than barred. Cited because the obvious defense is that the buckled edge was visible, and § 1714(a)'s text does not state the proportional rule.

*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.

By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Courts & Legal Aid in California

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is responsible when someone is hurt on a temporary walkway through a construction area?

Often more than one party. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) makes everyone responsible for an injury occasioned to another by a want of ordinary care or skill, which reaches the contractor that built and maintained a temporary pedestrian route as well as the owner who directed the public onto it. Where the owner is a public entity, a claim for the condition of public property carries its own statutory elements, including notice of the danger and an opportunity to fix it. The postings on site — contractor name, permit number, routing signage — are usually the fastest way to identify who the second defendant is, and photographs of them are worth taking early.

Does a claim against a public entity have a different deadline than one against a contractor?

Yes, and the difference is large. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) requires a claim for death or for injury to person or personal property against a public entity to be presented not later than six months after the cause of action accrues, in writing and, under Cal. Gov't Code § 945.4, before any lawsuit. A claim against a private contractor is not subject to that rule and instead runs on the two years given by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1. Where the same incident may involve both, the safe course is to work to the six-month deadline, because presenting a claim that turns out to be unnecessary costs nothing while missing one is final.

Does tripping on a hazard in plain view defeat a California injury claim?

No. California divides fault rather than treating it as a bar. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) makes a person responsible for an injury occasioned by a want of ordinary care, and in applying it the California Supreme Court in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), described a pure comparative system in which a plaintiff's recovery is reduced only to the extent that his own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury. What a walkway looked like, how it was lit, whether pedestrians were being funnelled along it, and how obvious the defect really was all go to the division of fault.

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Your Privacy Choices