Free Consultation: (650) 345-8484 Tap Here to Call Us

A Law Firm You Can Trust.

Contact Us for a Free Consultation

A Law Firm You Can Trust.

California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Plaintiffs in Suit Based on Dangerous Condition of Public Property

In a pivotal opinion reversing both the trial and appellate courts’ decisions, a California Supreme Court holding alleviates the burden on plaintiffs bringing a wrongful death action against the government based on an alleged dangerous condition of public property. The issue before the court in this case was whether the Government Claims Act requires a plaintiff to establish that a dangerous condition not only caused a decedent’s fatal injury but also the third-party conduct that brought about the accident. The court held that it did not.

In this case, the decedents were in a fatal car accident, in which a collision by another car forced their vehicle over the curb and onto the grassy center median of the boulevard, where the car hit one of several large magnolia trees in the median. Although they were all wearing seat belts, the driver and passengers died from their injuries. A jury subsequently convicted the other driver of vehicular manslaughter.

The plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against the City of Los Angeles, alleging that the particular road constituted a dangerous condition because the magnolia trees on the median were too close to the roadway, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to drivers who lose control of their cars, and in this case causing the decedents’ fatal injuries. In support of their case, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits from several experts who stated that the proximity of the trees in the median to the roadway was a foreseeable danger to the public. In addition, the plaintiffs presented evidence of 142 accidents on the boulevard between 1998 and 2009, as well as publications discussing roadside safety. The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that the public property did not cause the accident, and the other driver did. The motion was granted by the trial court and upheld by the court of appeals.

 

Section 835 of the Government Claims Act provides that a public entity may be held liable if the plaintiff shows that (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; (2) the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; and (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that was incurred. The plaintiff is also required to prove that either the negligent or wrongful act of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition, or, as in the case here, the public entity had notice of the dangerous condition for a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. Under the Act, public property constitutes a dangerous condition if it physically defective in such a way as to foreseeably endanger those using it. Generally, a public entity is not liable under § 835 for the negligent conduct of third parties on public property. However, if the public property creates a substantial risk of injury even when it is used with due care, and it combines with a third party’s negligent conduct to cause an injury, the public entity is not immune from liability.

In this case, the California Supreme Court explained that the issue of whether the condition of public property is dangerous is separate from whether the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, and such public property may constitute a dangerous condition even if it does not proximately cause an injury. Therefore, the plaintiffs were required to show that a dangerous condition of public property proximately caused the fatal injuries to the decedents as a result of the collision with the other car. However, the court continued, nothing in the law requires the plaintiffs to prove that the allegedly dangerous condition also caused the conduct of the third party that precipitated the accident. In reversing the summary judgment order by the lower courts, the court allowed the plaintiffs to continue with their wrongful death claim.

The San Mateo injury attorneys at the Law Offices of Galine, Frye, Fitting & Frangos offer aggressive and experienced legal representation for victims of motor vehicle collisions, as well as other accidents. If you or a loved one has been injured as the result of another person’s or entity’s negligence, contact us at 650-345-8484 or online to set up a free consultation.

More Blog Posts:

California Appeals Court Affirms $15 Million Verdict Against Semi-Truck Operator in Wrongful Death Action, Injury Lawyers Blog, published November 4, 2015

Auto AccidentsandCar AccidentandVehicle Accident

Client Reviews

    I retained Ilya Frangos of Galine, Frye, Fitting & Frangos on a business litigation matter involving a frivolous lawsuit filed in federal court. Ilya guided me through the case and helped make sure that I understood the process… He always took the time to answer all my questions and helped put my mind at ease. I would highly recommend him and this firm!

    Agatha

    I called Mr Frye after my wife had passed away… John listened to my case over the phone, after aggreeing to represent me, handled everything from there… I have already recommended Mr Frye to a friend for help with a similiar case and would without reserve recommend him to anybody. He came highly recommended as an expert in these type cases, and I believe he demonstrated this personally.

    Jerry

    Chantel Fitting is as good as it gets. If you have been injured, need help and cant get what you know you deserve from one of the big insurance companies, then you have got to call Chantel. She will fight for you like it was her that was hurt… She cares. Call her. You wont be sorry you did.

    Cindy C.

    A great experience. Excellent law firm which treats their client’s with the utmost respect. Very knowledgeable and made me fell extremely secure when handling my personal injury claim. Would highly recommend Galine, Frye, Fitting & Frangos to handle your next case.

    Lisa D.

    I was fortunate enough to have been represented and retained by this law firm for my injuries sustained by an under insured motorist. I must say Chantel Fitting and Illya Frangos went above and beyond trying to resolve my case… I would highly recommend this law firm and stop shopping around if you are looking for the best, as this is as good as it gets.

    Joanna K.

Submit a Law Firm Client Review