Plaintiff Dolores Raposas was a regular guest at a home owned by her friend, defendant Connie Stewart. One night, Raposas tripped and fell while walking down the pathway in front of the house. Raposas argued that Stewart breached her duty to provide adequate illumination on the pathway because a motion-activated light had failed to operate as Raposas forged ahead into the dark. Stewart moved for summary judgment, arguing that she had no actual or constructive notice of any issue with the porch light, and alternatively, she owed no duty to Raposas because the darkness caused by the delayed light was an open and obvious condition. The trial court granted summary judgment to Stewart, ruling that there were no triable issues of material fact.
Stewart retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the judgment against Raposas’s appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting Raposas’s argument that several factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court held that Raposas failed to raise a triable issue of material fact with respect to Stewart’s actual or constructive knowledge of the adequacy of the illumination of the pathway.
Raposas v. Stewart 
