HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 CLAIM M. WHITE 04-16-01'AGENDA RE 9RT
MEETING DATE'
APRIL 16, 2001
180-10
TO'
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
No. 11
04-16-01
FROM'
SUBJECT:
CITY ATTORNEY
CLAIM OF HEIRS OF MARGARET WHITE; CLAIM NO. 01-16
SUMMARY:
The City Attorney is recommending that the City Council reject Claim No. 01-16, Heirs
of Margaret White.
RECOMMENDATION'
After review and investigation by the City's Claims Administrators and by this office, it is
recommended that the City Council reject the claim and direct the City Clerk to send
notice thereof to the claimant and the claimant's attorneys.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with this action.
BACKGROUND:
Margaret White was killed in an accident that occurred at the intersection of Fairhaven
and Esplanade. Ms. White, a pedestrian, was struck by a motor vehicle, when she
attempted to cross Esplanade. The intersection is not within the corporate limits of the
City of Tustin and the City does not have any jurisdiction over this intersection.
ATTACHMENTS'
Claim
34541\1
11
12
13
14
'15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 Gordon G. Phillips, Jr. BAR NO: 90232
LAW OFFICES OF GORDON G. PHILLIPS, JR.
2 Century Centre- Tower One
2601 Main Street, Suite 340
3 Irvine, California 92614'
(949) 250-5980; FAX (949) 250-5981
Attorneys for Claimants
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO GOVERNMENTAL/PuBLIC ENTITY
..
In the Matter of the Claim off ) CLAIM F{~[ DAMAGES TO
) GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLIC ENTITY
JOHN WHITE, individually, and as'the )
surviving spouse of Decedent, Margaret White, ) [PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
STEPHEN CHILDS, surviving son of ) SECTION 910, et.seq.]
Decedent Margaret White, PItlLLIP CHILDS, )
surviving son of Decedent Margaret White, and )
WENDIE JORDAN, surviving daughter of
Decedent Margaret White; and the ESTATE
.
OF MARGARET WHITE,
AGAINST:
Claimants
)
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF TUSTIN,)
CITY OF ORANGE, and CITY OF SANTA)
Respondents.' )
TO:
TO:
COUNTY OF ORANGE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Clerk of the Board
10 Civic Center Plaza.
4th Floor, Room 465
Santa Aha, CA 92701
COUNTY O'F ORANGE
Public Facilities and Resources Department
300 N. Flower Street.
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA '92702--4048
Attn: John W. Sibley~ Director of Traffic Committee
1
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLiC ENTITIES
-4
'6
TO:
TO:
TO:.
CITY OF TUST'IN
CITY CLERK
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
CITY OF TUSTIN
Field Services Maintenance (Streets)
1472 Service Road
Tustin, CA 92680
CITY OF oRANGE
CITY CLERK
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92867
9 ' TO:
10
11
CITY OF ORANGE
Public Works Department
· 300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92867
12
13
14
15
16
.17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
'28
TO:
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY CLE .RK
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana,.CA 92702
(714) 647-5400
JOHN WHITE, individually, as surviving husband of Decedent, Margaret White, and
STEPHEN CHILDS, PHILLIP CHILDS, and WENDIE JORDAN, as surviving Children of
Decedent Margaret .White, and the ESTATE OF MARGARET WHITE, hereby make claims
against COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF TUSTIN, CITY OF ORANGE, and the CITY OF
SANTA ANA (hereinafter referred to as the "GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES") for wrongful
death damages .and make the 'following statements in support of their Claim'
1. Date of Incident:
2. Place 0f Incident:
December 9, 2000; Saturday, at approximately 9 15 a.m,,
(with 10:25 a.m. as a time of pronouncement of death.)
Fairhaven Avenue at intersection with Esplanade Avenue,
in the unincorporated area of Orange County, State of
California.
Specifically, according to the applicable police report, the subject accident occurred
within'the northbound/southbound crosswalk of Fairhaven Avenue in a location adjacent
· .to the eastbound #1 lane of Fairhaven Avenue, at the intersection of Esplanade AVenue in
the unincorporated area of Orange County,. California.
2
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLIC ENTITIES'
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3~
· .
Claimants Currently Reside At:
JOHN WHITE
STEPHEN CHILDS
:
PHILLIp CHILDS
WENDIE JORDAN
4~
5~
Notices Concemine This Claim Should Be Sent To:
Gordon G. Phillips, Jr.
LAW OFFICES OF GORDON G. PHILLIPS, JR.
2601 Main Street, Suite.340
Irvine, CA '92614
(949) 250-5980;.FAX (949) 250-5981
The CircumstangesGivin~ Rise To This Action Are. As Follows:
,
See Police Report - Attached Hereto'.
On Saturday, December 9, 2000, at approximately 9' 15 a.m., Decedent Margaret White
was walking along a walking/jogging trail which had been installed by the GOVERNMEI~TAL
ENTITIES in approximately 1992. When she reached the end of the walking/jogging trail at
Esplanade Avenue, she proceeded to the southwest comer of the intersection of Esplanade and
Fairhaven in order to cross Esplanade Avenue in a northbound direction. She entered the
3
~LAIM'FoR DAMAGES TO GovERNMENTAL/PUBLIC ENTITIES
1 crosswalk on. the westem side of said intersection and proceeded northbound across Esplanade
2 Avenue. When she reached a point adjacent to the No. 1 eastbound traffic lane of Fairhaven, she
.3 was struck by'a 2001 Chevrolet pickup truck, bearing California license No. 6J93615, being
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
4 operated by Jose Pedro Raul, who was proceeding eastbound on Fairhaven Avenue. As a result.
5 Of said impact, Decedent Margaret White suffered fatal injuries. She was transported Via
6 emergency vehicle to Western Medical Center located at 1001 N: Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana,
7 California 92705. Despite extensive resuscitation attempts by'various rescue personnel and
8 'health care providers, Ms. White was pronounced dead at 10:2~5 ~t.m. on December 9, 2000, at the ~
9 Western Medical Center.
As a result of said impact, Margaret White (bom May 28, 1942, age 58 years old at the
time of the accident) left lawful heirs' John White, her surviving husband (bom March 18, 1946,
age 54 years old at the time of the accident), and three adult children, Stephen Childs, Phillip
Childs,.and Wendie Jordan.
Decedent Margaret White and her surviving spouse, Jolm White, were married on
November 28, 1992, in Solihull, England and immigrated to the United States in 1995. They
resided in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of Califomia.
18 6.
19
20
21 7.
22.:
23
Property .Damage: Decedent's personal effects that she was wearing at the time of
· .
the incident with an estimated total value of $250.00.
.
1NJIJRIES' Death of Margaret White, lawful wife of John White, and natural
mother of claimants, Stephen Childs, Phillip Childs, and Wendie Jordan.
,
24 8.
25
26
27
28
Basis For Claim Against Governmental Entities:
Governmental Entity responden, ts, designed, constructed, signed, monitored, maintained
and repaired the SUBJECT ROADWAY and the adjacent jogging/walking trail in the City and
·
County territory, as described above.
4
"CLAIM FOR DAMAGEs TO GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLIC ENTITIES
Said accident was the result of the existence of dangerous conditions on and along the
2 SUBJECT ROADWAY, which was and is the property owned, designed, constructed,
3 maintained and repaired by said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
Claimants contend that the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES; and each of them, are
.
responsible for the dangerous conditions of the SUBJECT ROADWAY and Claimants' ·
·
6 damages.
7 Claimants contend that the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and' each of them,, created
8 the dangerous 'conditions of said roadway'and Surr°Unding area~ f!xrther described herein by
· 9 engaging in conduct including, but not limited to'
10 (A)
Employees of the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of them, negligently
11
or wrongfully created the dangerous conditions of property within the scope of
12
their employment, or;
13 ' (B)
.The GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES had actual Or constructive notice of the
14
15
conditions under Govt. Code. Sec. 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to
,
have taken measures to protect against the dangerous conditions.
16
17
Specifically, said dangerous conditions include, but are not limited to, the following:
The subject incident occurred in an area wherein the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES had
18 previously, approximately eight years before this incident,.designed, installed, and constructed a
19 pedestrian trail that was used by residents in the area for jogging and walking. The subject
20
21
22
pedestrian walkway/trail had been designed to end at the southeast comer of the intersection of
Fairhaven Avenue and Esplanade AVenue. The GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, by engaging in
·
the conduct of creating said pedestrian jogging/walking trail, intentionally created a situation that
23
24
25
26
was intended to, and, in fact, did, substantially increase the incidents and frequency of pedestrian
·
presence and utilization of the intersection at Esplanade.and Fairhaven Avenues. More
speeificaily, the residents who resided north of the Esplanade and Fairhaven intersection were
required to use and cross such intersection whenever they desired to utilize the jogging/walking
27 trail..
28
CLAIM FOR'DAMAGES TO GoVERNMEN'i'AL/puBLIC ENTITIES-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further, such GO ,VE~ENTAL ENTITIES knew, or should have known, that the
'installation of the jogging/walking trail would' increase the level of pedestrian traffic at. the
.
subject intersection. 'Yet; the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES never installed any type of traffic
controls, either in.conjunction With the initial installation of the jogging/walking trail, or at any
time thereafter despite repeated requests from members of the community to do so, as well as
· ~¢ontinued increase in pedestrian usage of the intersection, and continued increase in vehicular
traffic flow and vehicular speeds for traffic proceeding both westbOund and eastbound on
Fairhaven Avenue.
Further said roadway was improperly designed, constructed, monitored, and/or adapted to
the installation of a pedestrian jogging/walking trail at all times by the GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITIES with regard to sufficient signing advising of the presence of pedestrians sufficiently
west of the .intersection to.apprize oncoming eastbound motorists of the. presence of pedestrians.
in and about the area. Said GOVE .RNMENTAL ENTITIES failed to respond to changes in'
circumstances with regard to the usage of the intersection by pedestrians and the manner of usage
of the roadway in the area of the intersection by motorists despite numerous prior
communications from residents in the area apprizing said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES of the
dangerous nature of the subject intersection. Said communications and notices of the dangerous
design and/or conditions at the intersection incli~de increased traffic usage on the roadway,
· increased vehicular speed on the roadway to such an extent that it became increasingly more
difficult for pedestrians to safely cross the intersection of Fairhaven and Esplanade at the
crosswalk. Residents in the area viewed the subject crosswalk as a hazardous street crossing.
Further, prior to the subject accident, residents in the area had reported the dangerous
nature of this roadway and intersection to various members of the GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITIES. Yet no changes and/or adequate responses from said GOVERNMENTAL '
ENTITLES were.forthcoming. At no time did any of the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITLES make
any changes with regard to the design of the roadway, signing of the roadway, and/or the
installation of stop signs and/or other traffic controls.
6
-CLAIM 'FOR ~)AMAGES TO GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLIC ENTITIES
Further, said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITLES failed to request and secure assistance
2 from law enforcement agencies in the form of requesting that such law enforcement agencies
10
11
12
'13
increase the frequency of their patrols of the SUBJECT ROADWAY and intersection area.
Further, said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of them, at all times knew that
5 Fairhaven was a relatively straight street in both westbound and.eastbound directions, and that
6 there were'no configurations on Fairhaven in terms of curves or hills that would impede
14
!5
'16
7 motorists from speeding. Instead, the fact that Fairhaven is a straight, wide, four-lane street for
8 Several miles west of the accident intersection and one mile ea§t'gf the accident intersection,
9 tended to encourage motorists to travel the subject roadway at excessive speeds, thereby
17
18
19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.substantially increasing the dangerous nature of the subject intersection for pedestrian usage.
Further said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of them, failed to adequately
monitor and/or track the number of accidents that were actually occurring at the subject
intersection, and failed to maintain accurate records as to what the tree traffic-versus-traffic and
traffic-versus-pedestrian incident rates at the subject intersection actually were.
Further, the installation of a crosswalk at the subject intersection, without including any
additional safety measures, such'as a stop Sign, a traffic signal, and/or sufficient signing, had a
..
tendency to make pedestrians believe that the crosswalk wOuld provide a greater degree of safety
than had been historically justified. In view of the termination of a jogging/walking trail at this
location and' all of the design and usage factors set forth above, said location constituted a trap
for both motorists and pedestrians.
Specifically, said prior notification to the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of
them, occurred at least as early as May 26, 1998, approximately two-and-one-half years before
the subject accident, wherein the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of them,'had been ·
advised that the subject pedestrian walkway area along Esplanade, between Fairhaven anci
Seventeenth Street, had grown in terms of its volume and frequency of usage by pedestrians, that
Fairhaven had become a b'usier street with traffic consistently moving in excess of the posted
speed limit of 45 miles per hour, that the subject sign for the crossing was only approximately
?
cLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO GOVERNMENTAI. dPUBL[C ENTITLES
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
thirty feet from the subject.intersection for eastbo, und traffic, providing insufficient stopping
distance for eastbound vehicles, that drivers 'in the westbound lanes of Fairhaven were
descending from a small rise in the roadway and tended to gain speed as they proceeded downhill
toward the infersection, and that drivers in both directions did not appear to be'aware of the fact
that this was a frequently-used pedestrian crossing by reason of the presence/installation of the
pedestrian walkway along Esplanade between Fairhaven and Seventeenth Street.
Further, in April 2000, said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES communicated their
knowledge tha:t the utilization of marked crosswalks, alone, width,out additional traffic controls,
are generally not recommended at most intersections and communicated their knowledge that the
painted lines offered no real protection, to pedestrians.
Further, said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES; did not correctly assess or monitOr the
· dangerous nature of the intersection and/or underestimated the volume of pedestrian usage at this
·
particular intersection, due to a lack of sufficient consideration being given to the increased usage
of this particular intersection by reason of the installation of a walkway/jogging trail (which
GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. created) that ended at the subject intersection.
Further, said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of them, failed to take
appropriate steps to ascertain, identify, and advise various law enforcement agencies as to hours
of high pedestrian crossing activity for targeted enforcement, including, but not limited to,
,
weekend' momings, when residents in the area would be more likely to utilize the subject
intersection with greater frequency.
.. Further, with more specificity, the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES had specifically been
advised in July 2000, i.e., a period of time sufficient to install requisite corrections and signals
before the death of Margaret White, about the increasing number of accidents at the intersection
0fFairhaven and Esplanade, and were specifically requested to prevent' a death at that dan'gerous
intersection before it was too late.
Further, as late as 'October 24, 2.000, still with sufficient time to take steps to remedy the
problems at the subject intersection, said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES again 'failed to install
·
8
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO GOVERNMENTAI.#PUBL'IC ENTITLES
1 traffic signals in a prompt and timely manner, despite, the fact that historical' traffic studies
indicated that traffic signals were warranted in that the findings of such studies verified an
'.
increase in traffic volumes and vehicular conflicts resulting in an increased nUmber of accidents,
'4 and expressly recognized that the situation would be better managed/addressed with the
5. ~nstallation of traffic signals.
Thus, Claimants, and each of them, hereby allege and contend that the death 0fMargaret
"7
White could have been avoided if the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES had affirmative responded
in a timely manner to the frequent complaints made to the GOyE. RNMENTAL ENTITIES in the'
10
preceding years. Such numerous complaints should have alerted.the GOVE~ENT~
ENTITIES to the extreme danger to public safety that existed at the intersection of Fairhaven and
1'1 Esplanade.
12
13
14
15
'16
Further, said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and'each of them, were specifically
advised that this particular intersection required even more'than normal measures for adequate
public safety because the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES had taken it upon themselves to
provide a public'walking path that led directly to the intersection, and that said intersection was
extremely dangerous for public safety, and that the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES may have
17 liability for negligence and failure to perform affirmative action and carry.out its mission to
18 provide public safety, in a fair, reasonable, prompt, and diligent manner.
19
20
21
22
23
9. At all times herein mentioned, the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES and each of them,
were responsible for the planning, design, supervision, control, construction, servicing,
maintenance, repair, traffic cOntrol, and monitoring of the performance of the intersection,
including, but not limited to, the interface of pedestrians and/or vehicles at the subject
24" intersection and. other activities, related to the SUBJECT ROADWAY, in'cluding, but not iimited
· .
25 to, utilizing signs, stop signs, light signals, flashing amber/yellow signals, and/or other devices so
26 as to minimize and/or eliminate the dangerous nature and characteristics of the subject
27 intersection.
28 "
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLIC EN;i'ITIES
· . 10. That at said time and place, the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, by and through
2 their employees, agents, servants, and independent contractors, proximately caused the injuries
3 and damages as hereafter mentioned the Claimants by negligently, wantonly, reekl'essly~
tortiously, wrongfully, unreasonably, and unlawfully:
5 A.
i0
i'1
12.
14
1'5
1'6
17
i8'
19
20
22
23
'24
25
26
27
28
Planning, designing, constructing, o'wning, possessing, controlling,
operating, maintaining, serVicing, inspecting, repairing and monitoring the
SUBJECT ROADWAY and adjacent property and roadways, including,
but not limited to, the geometric desi.gn,~$sign traffic controls, access
controls, warning devices, topography and physical features;
B,
Supervising, controlling, contracting, inspecting, repairing, maintaining,
monitoring, warning, or failing to warn, and working on or at the
SUBJECT ROADWAY with regard to design configurations, geometrics,
..
sight distances, warning devices, topography, physical features, and
fixtures on and adjacent to the S .UBJECT ROADWAY which created a
dangerous condition which was not reasonably apparent to prudent
C,
motorists or prudent pedestrians.
Failing to guard, warn, and protect pedestrians, of hazards which were
..
unforeseeable, or not reasonably apparent to prudent, pedestrians, which
the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES knew about, or in the exercise of.
D~
reasonable diligence should have known about on the SUBJECT
·
ROADWAY;
Designing, constmeting, owning, supervising, controlling, testing,
entrusting, permitting, managing, maintaining, servicing, repairing,
inspecting and operating with regard to the SUBJECT ROADWA~ so as
·
to cause, permit,' and allow dangerous, defective and unsafe conditions at
the accident site to exist as herein above described;
E~
Failing to install appropriate signs, .:signgls, road markers, and the like to
10
C~,IM FOR DAMAGES TO GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLIC ENTITIES
warn and/or .apprize motorists or pedestrians of the presence of a greater
4 F.
number of pedestrians in the area due to the presence of a jogging/walking
.trail that terminated at the subject intersection; '
Conducting themselves with reference to the SUBJECT ROADWAY so as
to proximately cause the injuries and damages claimed bY Claimants.
7 11.
The conduct of the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of them, caused
8 dangerous conditions that created a substantial risk of the type 9f. injuries hereinafter alleged
when the SUBJECT ROADWAY was used with due care in a manner in which it was reasonably
foreseeable that it would be used.
II.
12
12. On'DeCember 9, 200'0, and at all times prior thereto, the above-described Public
13 property was in a dangerous and hazardous, condition that created a substantial risk of the type of
14 injuries herein alleged when the property was used with due care in a manner Which was
15 reasonably foreseeable.
16
17
13. The GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of them, at all times, had actual
18
19
knowledge of the existence of the dangerous conditions of the SUBJECT ROADWAY and
knew, or should have kn0wn~ of its dangerous character a' sufficient period of time prior to the
20
21
22
injury to have taken measures.to protect.against the dangerous conditions in that, and not by way
of limitation, said GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES were aware of reports, complaints, claims and
notices to GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES advising them of the dangerous conditions prior to the
23 subject accident,' and the dangerous conditions had existed for a sufficient period of time prior to
24 ' the Subject accident, and were of such an obvious nature that GOVERNMENTAL ENTIT~ES, in
25 the exercise of due care, .should have discovered the'conditions and the dangerous character. The
26 aforementioned GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, and each of theml had the authority and it was
27
28
their .responsibility to take adequate measures to protect against dangerous conditions at their
o
Il
-CLAIi%{ FOR DAMAGES TO (~OV£I~M£NTAL/PIJBLIC ENTITIES
1 expense, and the fund or other means were immediately available to them.
14. As a further direct result of the conduct of the GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES and
each of them, as. described herein, and the aforementioned dangerous conditions, Claimants and
5 Claimants' Decedent, Margaret White, sustained severe and fatal injuries, all to Claimantsi
6 damage in an amount according to proof.
.8-
10
11
12
13
15. As a further proximate result of the subject occurr, en. ce and the aforementioned
injuries, Claimants' were required to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat
and cam for them, and did and will incur medical, .and incidental expenses, including but not
limited to funeral and burial e~cpenSes. In addition, Claimants have and will continue to suffer
wrongful death damages,' including loss of pecuniary support and loss of society and
companionship:
14
15 Dated: March 14, 2001
LAW OFFICES OF GORDON G. PHILLIPS, JR.
16
17
18
19
~-ORD ON' O2
Attomeys for Claim t~.
' )"%
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28