“[A] dangerous condition of public property... as set out in Government Code Sec. 835 consists of the following elements:

1. a dangerous condition of public property;
2. a foreseeable risk, arising from the dangerous condition, of the kind of injury the plaintiff suffered;
3. actionable conduct in connection with the condition, i.e., either negligence on the part of a public employee in creating it, or failure by the entity to correct it after notice of its existence and dangerousness;
4. a causal relationship between the dangerous condition and the plaintiff's injuries; and
5. compensable damage sustained by the plaintiff.”

(Cole v. Town of Los Gatos (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 749, 757-758.) Because governmental liability is limited and statutory, every fact material to the existence of the claim must be specifically pleaded. (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439.)

“Dangerous Condition”

A dangerous condition is a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) risk of injury when such property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used. (Gov. Code, § 830.)

“A public entity is not liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of public property unless the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition and the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred.” (Fuller v. Department of Transportation (Aug. 20 2019, B287689) __Cal. App. 2nd__ citing Gov. Code, § 8351; Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1099, 1105.)

“Section 830, subdivision (a) defines ‘dangerous condition’ to mean ‘a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant) 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.’” (Schonfeldt v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1465 citing Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist., supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 810.) “Property is not dangerous if it is safe when used with due care and the risk of harm is created only when foreseeable users fail to exercise due care.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal. App. 4th at 439.)

“‘[W]hether a given set of facts and circumstances creates a dangerous condition is usually a question of fact and may only be resolved as a question of law if reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion.’” Id. “Liability is not imposed where the danger is apparent to a reasonable person exercising due care, as a matter of law.” (Mathews v. City of Cerritos (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1380.) “The presence of railroad tracks is an open and obvious danger that any reasonable person would know is dangerous.” (Christoff v. Union Pac. R. Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 126.) “A public entity is not liable where the injured party ignores the notice provided by the condition itself.” (Fredette v. City of Long Beach (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 122, 132.)

Although public entities may be held liable for injuries occurring to reasonably foreseeable users of the property, even when the property is used for a purpose for which it is not designed or which is illegal, liability may ensue only if the property creates a substantial risk of injury when it is used with due care. Whether a condition creates a substantial risk of harm depends on how the general public would use the property exercising due care, including children who are held to a lower standard of care. (§ 830.) The standard is an objective one; a plaintiff’s particular condition... does not alter the standard.” (Schonfeldt v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1462, 1466.)

Substantial Risk of Harm

“Although public entities may be held liable for injuries occurring to reasonably foreseeable users of the property, even when the property is used for a purpose for which it is not designed or which is illegal, liability may ensue only if the property creates a substantial risk of injury when it is used with due care.” (Schonfeldt v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1466 citing generally Acosta v. County of Los Angeles (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 208, 210-211, 213; Torkelson v. City of Redlands (1961) 198 Cal. App. 2d 354, 359-360....) “Whether a condition creates a substantial risk of harm depends on how the general public would use the property exercising due care, including children who are held to a lower standard of care” (Id., citing Sec. 830.)

“The negligence of a plaintiff-user of public property... is a defense which may be asserted by a public entity; it has no bearing upon the determination of a ‘dangerous condition’ in the first instance... If, however, it can be shown that the property is safe when used with due care and that a risk of harm is created only when foreseeable users fail to exercise due care, then such property is not ‘dangerous’ within the meaning of section 830, subdivision (a).” (Fredette v. City of Long Beach (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 122, 131.)

Defenses for the Public Entity

“The negligence of a plaintiff-user of public property... is a defense which may be asserted by a public entity; it has no bearing upon the determination of a ‘dangerous condition’ in the first instance.... If, however, it can be shown that the property is safe when used with due care and that a risk of harm is created only when foreseeable users fail to exercise due care, then such property is not ‘dangerous’ within the meaning of section 830(a).” (Fredette, supra, 187 Cal. App. 3d at 131.)