{"id":662035,"date":"2015-04-01T06:46:30","date_gmt":"2015-04-01T12:46:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=662035"},"modified":"2015-03-25T09:47:47","modified_gmt":"2015-03-25T15:47:47","slug":"to-see-or-not-to-see-the-law-of-patent-vs-latent-defects","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/to-see-or-not-to-see-the-law-of-patent-vs-latent-defects\/","title":{"rendered":"To see or not to see: the Law of Patent vs. Latent Defects"},"content":{"rendered":"

Candice B. Macario | Gordon & Rees LLP | March 16, 2015<\/p>\n

In Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Second District for the Court of Appeals of California set forth a concise listing of exemplar cases of patent defects. In this case, a design professional successfully challenged a construction defect lawsuit brought against them, on the basis that the defect complained of was open and obvious and the County had ran out of time to bring their action.<\/p>\n

In Delon Hampton & Associates, a lawsuit was brought by Jose Madrigal, (Madrigal) a real person who sued the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after falling on a stair at a rail station constructed on 4th\u00a0and Hill Streets in Los Angeles.\u00a0 The rail station was completed in 1993 and Madrigal filed his suit on August 9, 2012, alleging among other things, that the banister of the stairwell was \u201ctoo low\u201d and the stairwell was \u201ctoo small\u201d given the number, age and volume of persons entering and exiting the Metro Rail station. \u00a0Further, Madrigal alleged that MTA failed to properly design, construct and inspect and repair the premises.\u00a0 MTA cross-complained against numerous other entities involved in the construction of the rail station where Madrigal suffered his injury including Hampton, which performed \u201cdesign and\/or construction services at the premises\u201d.\u00a0 Hampton, challenged the lawsuit by way of a demurrer, or a response stating that the lawsuit did not have merit.\u00a0 Hampton alleged that MTA\u2019s claims were barred by the four year statute of limitations set forth for patent defects in California Civil Code Section 337.1.<\/p>\n

Patent defects which are sometimes referred to as defects that are \u201copen and obvious\u201d are defects defined as \u201capparent to a normally observant person\u201d.<\/p>\n

In this case, the Court cited the following as an example of things that are patent defects;<\/p>\n