Personal Injury Caused By Condition of Public Property

a wall in poor condition

You’ve just been involved in a traffic collision with another car, but it wouldn’t have happened if a tree branch wasn’t obscuring your view of a stop sign. You’ve just been assaulted and robbed in a city parking garage at night, but it would not have occurred if access to the garage was restricted and there was adequate lighting. These scenarios involve a dangerous condition of public property and you may pursue an action against the appropriate government entity. However, to prevail on such a claim requires navigation through various statutory defenses and governmental immunities; an understanding of the applicable statutes and relevant case law is essential for success.

The legislature, in the California Government Code section 830, defines a dangerous condition of public property as “a condition of property that creates a substantial risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.”

The defense will often assert that a dangerous condition does not exist when third-party negligence contributes to the cause of the accident. However, the concurrent negligence of either the plaintiff, or a third person, does not break the chain of causation to relieve the public entity from liability if the dangerous condition was a “proximate cause” of plaintiff’s personal injury. Baldwin v. State (1972) 6 Cal.3d 424 (combination of dangerous intersection and negligent operation of motor vehicle by third party). In short, a third party’s negligence does not negate the existence of a “dangerous condition.” Swaner v. City of Santa Monica (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 789.

Public Responsibility to Prevent Personal Injury

California Government Code section 830.4 provides a qualification to the definition of a dangerous condition. This section provides immunity for a public entity’s “mere” failure to provide regulatory traffic control signals, stop signs, right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs or distinctive roadway markings as described in the Vehicle Code. However, when a public entity undertakes to install traffic signs and signals, it essentially invites public reliance on them and may be liable for creating a dangerous condition if the signs and signals fail to function as intended. Teall v. City of Cudany (1963) 60 Cal.2d 431.

Finally, under Government Code section 830 a dangerous condition on “adjacent property” includes the risk created by the condition of public property that may extend beyond its boundaries; constituting a hazard to persons or property nearby. Milligan v. City of Laguna Beach (1983) 34 Cal.3d 829 (trees on city property fell onto a residence on adjacent property causing damage).

If you are pursuing a claim against a public entity for a personal injury caused by the dangerous condition of public property, you will undoubtedly face one or more of these nuances in the law. Defeating dispositive motions from the defense and prevailing in such an action will depend upon your knowledge of governmental immunities and the case law interpreting them.

Recent Blog Posts

  • commercial trucks on highway

    Vicarious Liability Torts in Commercial Truck Accidents

    If a negligent driver causes a commercial truck accident, the trucking company can be burdened with vicarious liability torts. The company can be held liable for the driver’s negligence under the legal tenet known as respondeat superior, a Latin phrase that translates as “let the superior make the response.” This concept transfers the truck driver’s […]

    Read More
  • california fire possibly caused by utility company under strict liability

    3 Fascinating Strict Liability Tort Cases in Sacramento

    Tort liability in personal injury cases is most often based on acts of negligence, but there are exceptions. Sometimes the responsible party is held to the strict liability tort standard, meaning that a finding of negligence or malicious intent is not required. The most common types of strict liability tort cases are based on: Product […]

    Read More
  • student injured at school - parents suing for negligence

    Suing a School for Negligence: What You Need to Know

    A negligence-based lawsuit against a school can have unique complications, depending on the type of institution it is. Overall, teachers, school administrators, and other staff have a “duty of care,” meaning they must take reasonable steps to avoid and prevent circumstances likely to cause personal injury to a student. Some reasons you might want to […]

    Read More
  • Sacramento Office
  • 333 University Avenue, Suite 200
  • Sacramento, CA
  • (916) 756-0772
  • Roseville Office
  • 1544 Eureka Road, Suite 120
  • Roseville, CA
  • (916) 788-1960
  • Oakland Office
  • 1300 Clay St, Suite 600
  • Oakland, CA
  • (510) 962-4610

© 2019 Frank Penney Injury Lawyers, Serving the Areas of Sacramento, Roseville, Fairfield, Modesto, Stockton & Oakland California