Garabedian v. Skochko
California Court of Appeal
232 Cal. App. 3d 836, 283 Cal. Rptr. 802 (1991)

- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Haig Garabedian (plaintiff), a real estate agent, was seriously injured when he inspected a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) home and slipped and fell on debris that had accumulated around an empty swimming pool. Following the mandates of the Federal Tort Claims Act, Garabedian filed a claim with HUD in May of 1988. A few months later, HUD rejected the claim and sent Garabedian a letter advising him that although HUD owned the property, it was managed by an independent contractor, Steven Skochko, for whom HUD denied responsibility for his negligent acts. It was not until Garabedian received this letter that he had any knowledge that an independent contractor, and not HUD, managed the property. In August of 1988, Garabedian filed an action in federal court against HUD and Skochko. A year later, the federal court dismissed Skochko from the action without prejudice because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Skochko. More than a year later, in September of 1989, Garabedian filed a state-law negligence action against Skochko in a California state court. The trial court dismissed the state-law claim as timed-barred under the applicable one-year statutory limitations period for personal-injury claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.