Design Immunity May Not Shield A Public Entity From Liability Where It Failed To Warn Of A Known Danger

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Law Firm: Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Personal Injury
• Author: Ms Catherine L. Deter and Keith Smith
• Published date: 23 May 2023

Can a public entity rely upon design immunity where the public entity failed to warn of a design element that resulted in a dangerous condition of a roadway? In Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (S267453) 60 Cal. App. 5th 423, the California Supreme Court examined whether the design immunity found in California Government Code section 830.6 extends to claims alleging that the public entity failed to warn of a design element that resulted in a dangerous condition and held that public entities still "retain a duty to warn of known dangers that the roadway presents to the public."

The California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code ' 810, et seq.) provides that a government entity may be liable for creating a dangerous condition on its property or failing to protect against the dangerous condition when it had an opportunity to do so. However, the Government Code also provides for design immunity in situations where the alleged injuries or damages were caused by a design defect'that is, where the alleged dangerous condition was created as a result of a plan or design approved by authorized personnel and the substantial evidence supported the reasonableness of the plan. "To obtain design immunity, a public entity must establish that the challenged design was discretionarily approved by authorized personnel and that substantial evidence supported the reasonableness of the plan." Cornette v. Dept. of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 66.

Here the City established that the plan was approved by authorized personnel and deemed reasonable. The issue, however, developed into much more and turned on whether there was still a duty to warn. Namely, the California Supreme Court examined the circumstances of whether the statutory immunity also extends to claims alleging that a public entity failed to warn of a design element that resulted in a dangerous roadway condition. Relying heavily on the holding in Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d 318 (Cameron), the court concluded that design immunity does not necessarily preclude failure to warn claims. As the Court held in Cameron, "Where the state is immune from liability for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its property because the dangerous condition was created as a result of a plan or design which conferred immunity under Government Code section 830.6, the state may nevertheless be liable for failure to warn of this dangerous condition." Id. at p. 329.

Factual Background of the Case

On March...