What is the test for liability in a motor vehicle accident where the driver was struck by a piece of metal falling out of the window of a moving vehicle and causing injuries to the driver?

"The duty of care imposed on a property owner, even one with actual notice, does not require the repair of minor defects." (Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 398.) Known as the "trivial defect defense," under this doctrine it "is well established that a property owner is not liable for damages caused by a minor, trivial or insignificant defect in property. [Citation.]" (Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004)

Page 8

122 Cal.App.4th 922, 927.) Whether a defect is trivial is a question of law. (Ibid.) In making its determination, the trial court should consider "whether there existed any circumstances surrounding the accident which might have rendered the defect more dangerous than its mere [physical appearance] would indicate. . . . The court should also look at other factors such as whether the accident occurred at night in an unlighted area. Furthermore, the court should see if there is any evidence that other persons have been injured on this same defect." (Fielder v. City of Glendale (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 719, 734, italics added.)