Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)TortsMedium
A pedestrian was walking on a city sidewalk when she tripped and fell over a loose paving stone, sustaining a broken wrist. The paving stone had been loose for several months, and numerous complaints had been filed with the city's public works department about its hazardous condition. The city, despite these complaints, had failed to repair the stone. The pedestrian sued the city for negligence. The city argued that it had limited resources and could not immediately address every reported hazard. Which of the following best describes the city's duty of care to the pedestrian?
- AThe city owed a duty of reasonable care to maintain its sidewalks in a safe condition, especially after receiving notice of a hazard.
- BThe city owed no duty of care, as pedestrians assume the risk of walking on public sidewalks.
- CThe city's duty was limited by its available resources, making its failure to repair excusable.
- DThe city owed a duty to repair the hazard only if it was directly responsible for causing the loose paving stone.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. The city owed a duty of reasonable care to maintain its sidewalks in a safe condition, especially after receiving notice of a hazard.
Governmental entities, including cities, generally owe a duty of reasonable care to maintain public areas, such as sidewalks, in a safe condition for public use. This duty is heightened when the city has actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition and fails to take reasonable steps to remedy it.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. Pedestrians do not assume the risk of poorly maintained public infrastructure, especially when the city has notice of a hazard.
- C. While resource limitations can be a factor in some governmental decisions, they generally do not excuse a municipality from its basic duty to maintain safe public areas, especially concerning known hazards. This would typically be considered an operational decision, not a policy decision shielded by governmental immunity.
- D. The duty to maintain safe public areas exists regardless of whether the city directly caused the defect; it's about the maintenance of public property.
Governmental Duty of Care (Premises)
Governmental entities generally owe a duty of reasonable care to maintain their public premises in a safe condition for public use, particularly when they have notice of a dangerous condition.
- Applies to public areas (sidewalks, parks, roads).
- Standard is reasonable care.
- Duty is heightened with actual or constructive notice of a hazard.
- Immunities may apply but often do not cover operational negligence like failing to repair a known hazard.
Memory trick: Foreseeable Harm, Reasonable Person: The Standard of Care.