6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/03/12 Afternoon Session - Mar 12, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/03/12 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 28 min 8 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the procedural basics and parties involved in the 6DCA oral argument?

Unknown 0:48

Mr Williams, are you able to see the courtroom?

John Williams 0:52

I am.

Unknown 0:53

Okay, great. Thank you.

Unknown 4:31

All right, the Court of Appeal for

Unknown 4:49

Please be seated. Good afternoon and welcome. I'm just waiting waiting to see your your colleague opposite here. There we go. Uh good afternoon and welcome to oral argument this afternoon at the Sixth District Court of Appeal. We have one matter on calendar today. Uh and I will call it now H O five two five two nine Dolores Rapposis, plaintiff and appellant versus Connie Stewart, defendant and respondent, um, appearing for appellant. Please, uh sir, if you could state your appearance and confirm your time estimate.

John Williams 5:23

Uh good afternoon. John Williams appearing on behalf of the appellant. I'd like to reserve five minutes of my time for rebuttal.

Unknown 5:29

All right, thank you. And appearing for uh respondent here.

Ryan Dunbar 5:33

Thank you, Your Honor, Ryan Dunbar, on behalf of respondent, and I estimate about uh fifteen.

Unknown 5:38

All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dunbar. Mr. Williams, what let's turn back to you.

John Williams 5:43

Uh thank you, May. Please, the court. Um I'd like to put a finer point on a few key issues in this appeal today, but I do want to start with context, which I think is important here. Uh we're here on summary judgment to identify questions of fact, obviously not to resolve them. This case presents multiple and fundamental factual disputes and credibility determinations, which uh with even conflicting Eyewitness and expert testimony on key issues.

How does appellant’s counsel frame the factual disputes about the porch light and hidden step?

John Williams 6:13

Those issues include whether the porch light here ever activated before Ms. Raposa's fall. The only two eyewitnesses on that issue dispute that key fact. Whether Mr. Wheeler was waving his arms attempting to activate the light sensors. Again, the two eyewitnesses have different accounts of whether that happened. And Rapostas claims Wheeler made that admission to her. Um whether it was reasonable for Miss Rapposis to continue down the path, expecting that Wheeler's gestures would activate the porch light. And even if the porch light activated before Rapposis fell, whether it provided sufficient lighting to the hidden pathway step several feet away sufficient for roposis to differentiate that step from the pathway.

John Williams 7:01

And finally, whether Wheeler even saw Raposas fall on the hidden pathway step with the light on. All of those factual questions speak directly to Stuart's sole ground for summary judgment that she did not breach her duty of care to provide adequate lighting on her property. Now, related to that breach argument, there are also additional questions of fact raised by Stewart's argument that the pathway was, quote, open and obvious. And these include again whether the porch light was on or off when Rapostas fell, whether the halfway step where Rapostas fell was sufficiently visible, even if the porch light was on. Whether Roposis perceived the risk imposed by that pathway step and embraced it, or whether the risk imposed by that pathway step was latent, requiring a jury to determine Rapposis' comparative fault if any.

John Williams 7:57

But the undisputed testimony is that it was not d the darkened con condition of the pathway alone that caused Mr. Posa to fall. Uh both reposis and wheeler testified that they could see the pathway and each other right before repo roposis fell. And neither Roposis nor Wheeler testified that there was no light whatsoever, or that it was pitch black, causing them not to be able to make out the contours of the pathway. Instead, it was the pathway step combined with the lack of adequate lighting at that particular location that caused Rapposis to fall. The fact that Rop Rosa successfully navigated the porch steps is and walked halfway down the pathway raises a reasonable inference that there was at least enough light for her to see the pathway and to proceed within its boundaries.

John Williams 8:52

So the question properly framed for a jury is whether there was inadequate lighting in the location of the pathway step to reasonably perceive that step and dis and to distinguish it from the surface of the pathway itself. Again, that consideration will turn on a jury's determination of whether the light was on or off before Raposa's fall.