In a personal injury action brought by a woman who was injured in a collision involving a brick path and a tree in front of her house, is Respondent Respondent to the injury?

Contreras also claims that respondents are liable for her injuries because the planting strip contains a hazardous alteration that benefits their property, relying on the line of cases following Sexton v. Brooks, supra, 39 Cal.2d 153, 245 P.2d 496. Contreras did not genuinely dispute respondents' claim that they did not construct any alterations to the planting strip, including the building of the brick path and the planting of the tree. ¹⁵ Nevertheless, she contends respondents are liable for a hazardous alteration on the abutting sidewalk or planting strip benefiting their property. Contreras provided as evidence photographs of the planting strip in front of respondents' property as well as those in front of their neighbors' property. Based on these photographs, she [59 Cal.App.4th 202] argued that an alteration to the planting strip was made and that the alteration benefits respondents' property. She presented no other supporting evidence. She conceded during oral argument at the summary judgment hearing that she could not find any city records or any other evidence indicating who built the brick path or when it was built.