Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“[A] dangerous condition of public property... as set out in Government Code § 835 consists of the following elements:
(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.)
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, § 835; Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1099, 1105.)
“§ 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.)
“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 § 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 § 830, subdivision (a).” (Fredette v. City of Long Beach (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 122, 131.)
“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 § 830(a).” (Fredette, supra, 187 Cal. App. 3d at 131.)
or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
MUNOZ VS CITY OF INDIO
PSC1803347
Jan 23, 2019
Riverside County, CA
The elements to establish a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property are: 1) the incident occurred on public property as defined in G.C. §830(c), 2) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, 3) the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, 4) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and 5) the public entity had actual or constructive notice under §835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury
ENGEBRETSON VS PLAZA MERCADO HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF MICHELLE ENGEBRETSON BY CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PSC2001548
Aug 10, 2020
Riverside County, CA
To state a claim for dangerous condition of public property the following elements must be alleged: “(1) ‘that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury’; (2) ‘that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition’; (3) ‘that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred’; and (4) either (a) that a public employee negligently or wrongfully ‘created the dangerous condition’ or (b) that ‘[the] public entity had actual
YUZON VS. CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
MSC17-00618
Feb 22, 2018
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
ANDERSON VS CITY OF RICHMOND
MSC15-02171
Oct 25, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
BRIAN GONZALEZ VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, ET AL.
23AVCV00591
Aug 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Third Cause of Action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property: Government Code section 835 reads as follows: “Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and
PSC 1602057
May 18, 2017
Riverside County, CA
“Thus, the statutory scheme precludes a plaintiff from imposing liability on a public entity for creating a dangerous condition merely because it did not install the described traffic control devices.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 439.) Plaintiffs have now pled the dangerous “condition” of public property with sufficient specificity. Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts establishing a “dangerous condition” of public property for which City is not immune under Gov.
GOMEZ, ET AL. V. CITY OF SANTA ANA, ET AL.
30-2017-00898044-CU-PO-CJC
Dec 15, 2017
Orange County, CA
Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.
FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.
CVPO21-0196891
Jan 12, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.
FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.
CVPO21-0196891
Jan 13, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.
FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.
CVPO21-0196891
Jan 07, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.
FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.
CVPO21-0196891
Jan 08, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.
FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.
CVPO21-0196891
Jan 10, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.
FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.
CVPO21-0196891
Jan 09, 2023
Shasta County, CA
Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.
FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.
CVPO21-0196891
Jan 11, 2023
Shasta County, CA
As to the third cause of action: A public entity is liable if the property was (1) in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; (2) the dangerous condition caused the injury; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and (4) a negligent, wrongful or omission of a public entity employee created the dangerous condition or (5) the public entity had actual or constructive notice to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
LATTIMORE VS VAL VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIC1901532
Aug 13, 2020
Riverside County, CA
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
CAROL CARVEL VS THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, ET AL.
20STCV23571
Oct 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Condition of Public Property: The elements to establish a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property are: 1) the incident occurred on public property as defined in G.C. §830(c), 2) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, 3) the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, 4) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and 5) the public entity had actual or constructive notice under §835.2 a
ORELLANA VS CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PSC1902500
Nov 15, 2019
Riverside County, CA
A public entity is liable for a dangerous condition of its property if a plaintiff that suffered injury establishes that (1) the property was in a dangerous condition, (2) the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred, and (4) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of
FCS057645
Jun 15, 2022
Solano County, CA
created the dangerous condition; or b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
KAY VS. GOLDEN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 217-
30-2017-00937940-CU-PP-CJC
Dec 13, 2018
Orange County, CA
A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property under the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 835, “Property of a public entity” and “public property” mean real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity. (Gov. Code, § 830(c).) For liability to be imposed on a public entity for a dangerous condition of property, the entity must be in a position to protect against or warn of the hazard. (Gov. Code, § 835(b).)
INC 1302238
Mar 07, 2017
Riverside County, CA
Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property” if the plaintiff establishes all of the following: (a) that the property “was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury”; (b) that the injury “was proximately caused by the dangerous condition”; (c) that the dangerous condition “created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred” and (d) either that the dangerous condition was created by an employee's wrongful
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS VS IMPERIAL IRRIGATION HEARING RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 1ST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT OF SUN WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC BY IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
PSC1804910
Nov 20, 2018
Riverside County, CA
of his employment created the dangerous condition; or b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
DEREK POSSON VS URBAN COMMONS QUEENSWAY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV44729
Dec 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
ANDREA ELMA PINEDA,, AN INDIVIDUAL BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM ELMA ISLAS ALDUENDA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV47996
Jun 23, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his or her employment created the dangerous condition, or the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
BERNARDO HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, ET AL. V. INTERSTATE LOGISTICS, ET AL., ANDRELATED CROSS-ACTION
15CECG01733
Aug 14, 2017
Fresno County, CA
employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
B&S PROPERTY INVESTMENT, LLC VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
18STCV00932
Dec 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
FRENCH FABRIC, INC. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
18STCV03561
Dec 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
A claim for dangerous condition of public property requires a showing of either: (1) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity or (2) that the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition with sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. (Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1130.) Here, Plaintiff has alleged both negligent conduct and notice.
MCNULTY VS ARCATA
MSC20-01367
Dec 09, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
RENFRO-VINCENT VS. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
MSC21-00284
Sep 09, 2021
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or ¶ (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 [defining actual and constructive notice] a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. (( Metcalf v.
DWIGHT SUMMERFIELD, ET AL. VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY
21STCV30545
May 02, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
of his employment created the dangerous condition; or [¶] (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition . . . a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
ISAIAH SOLORIO VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC681756
Jun 25, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or [¶] (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
JASON SARGENT TURNER V CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
STK-CV-LCP-2015-0011924
Jan 15, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition."
JACQUE ANDERSON VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2011-00100701-CU-PO-GDS
Apr 26, 2012
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition . . . a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
JOCELYN BROOKINS, ET AL. VS A NEW DIRECTION FOR YOU, INC., ET AL.
18STCV05340
Jun 20, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Discussion Defendant demurs on Plaintiffs causes of action for willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of public property.
VIVIANA BAUTISTA VS PLATINUM BANQUET HALL & AUDITORIUM INC.
22STCV16449
Aug 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Caltrans demurs to the dangerous condition of public property cause of action on the grounds the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to show that the roadway constituted a dangerous condition.
HEIDI LUCAS, LINDA ROBERTS V. NIRANJAN SHARMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17CV-0354
Oct 19, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
LAURA MCGHEE VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC654125
Sep 05, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
COOPER VS HOLLANDS CUSTOM CABINETS
37-2018-00026166-CU-PA-CTL
Feb 27, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
YUZON VS. CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
MSC17-00618
May 31, 2018
Steve K. Austin
Contra Costa County, CA
DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (2ND CAUSE OF ACTION) A public entity is liable if the property was (1) in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; (2) the dangerous condition caused the injury; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and (4) a negligent, wrongful or omission of a public entity employee created the dangerous condition or (5) the public entity had actual or constructive notice to have taken measures to protect against the
RAMIREZ VS BROWN
PSC1801596
May 02, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Government Code § 840.2 states that [a]n employee of a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of public property if the plaintiff establishes that the property of the public entity was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) The dangerous condition was directly attributable wholly
MICHAEL MORRIS VS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV37624
Jan 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
have discovered this dangerous condition if they had exercised due care as public entities.
CECILIA SANTANA ET AL. VS MICHELE LYNN BROOKS ET AL.
STK-CV-UAT-2018-0011978
Jul 01, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
DISCUSSION Dangerous Condition of Public Property “Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or public employee or any other person.” (Gov. Code § 815.)
CHRISTIE REPPART VS CITY OF LONG BEACH
BC677638
Nov 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
MARIA DIAZ MORALES VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
23STCV04053
Jun 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
or the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
SUSAN DUNN, SHERIDAN DUNN V. SHERMAN KEMP, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16CVP-0140
Aug 21, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
employment created the dangerous condition; or ¶ (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
TRUJILLO V. CALTRANS
PC-20180033
Aug 09, 2019
El Dorado County, CA
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to identify any cognizable dangerous condition of public property.
MARK ARRIOLA VS WHITTIER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
20STCV16849
Apr 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Section 835 requires a plaintiff to establish that: the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred; and that either:(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive
HONGZHI, ET AL. V. YAO, ET AL.
18CV325959
Jun 20, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
COLIN VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2018-00046861-CU-PO-CTL
Nov 21, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
GUERRERO VS. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
30-2017-00949194-CU-PA-CJC
Oct 17, 2019
Orange County, CA
A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property under the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 835, “Property of a public entity” and “public property” mean real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity. (Gov. Code § 830(c).) For liability to be imposed on a public entity for a dangerous condition of property, the entity must be in a position to protect against or warn of the hazard. (Gov. Code § 835(b).)
INC 1302238
Mar 14, 2017
Riverside County, CA
or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or “(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
LAURA MCGHEE VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC654125
May 31, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The operative pleading is the first amended complaint (“FAC”), which contains the following causes of action: (1) dangerous condition of public property, (2) failure to perform mandatory duties, (3) dangerous condition of public property, and (4) negligent wrongful death. The State demurs to the first, second, and third causes of action. It contends that the first cause of action fails because it does not specify the manner in which the alleged conditions constituted a dangerous condition.
CAMPOS VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RIC1815929
Apr 11, 2019
Riverside County, CA
created the dangerous condition; or b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
CHAU VS. DENSON
30-2018-01008072-CU-PA-CJC
Nov 30, 2018
Orange County, CA
DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY - GOVT CODE 835(a) Govt Code 835(a), states that a public entity can be liable if "A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition." The undisputed facts show that no employee of the Regents created the dangerous condition.
RIAHI VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RG18914082
Jun 01, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Code §835, a prima facie showing of public liability for an injury caused by a dangerous condition includes a showing that: The property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; The dangerous condition proximately caused the injury; The dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the injury which occurred; and either: (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the condition; or (b) the public entity
CARL NUHFER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC578109
Mar 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Dangerous Condition of Public Property: Government Code Section 835 LAUSD contends that the allegation that Plaintiff fell when she mistakenly believed that a handrail extended to the final step in a set of steps does not rise to a dangerous condition of public property, rather such a defect is trivial. Plaintiff opposes and argues that the complaint more than adequately pleads a dangerous condition of public property.
VANESSA VASQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BC677542
Apr 11, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
or the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
DEBRA GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF CERRITOS, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV24415
Jun 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if Plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity
LEEANA KLIGIS VS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2016-00033066-CU-PO-CTL
Aug 09, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Under Government Code section 835, a public entity is “liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property ifthe plaintiff establishes that [1] the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, [2] that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, [3] that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred….” (Gov. Code, §835.)
SPARKS VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CVRI2103982
Sep 01, 2022
Riverside County, CA
scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
AIMEE HERNANDEZ ET AL VS ANNETTE GREEN ET AL
BC678601
Jan 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; (2) the dangerous condition caused the injury; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was injured; and (4) that either (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the condition, or (b) the public entity had actual or constructive
CRISTINA CHAVEZ VS CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK
BC715516
Nov 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Here, the only appropriate cause of action is “dangerous condition of public property,” and this is the only cause of action for which Plaintiff at least lists out some of the elements thereof. However, Plaintiff noticeably omits elements three (the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred), and six (the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing the harm). CACI No. 1100.
ARREOLA VS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
CVRI2105109
Sep 19, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Here, the only appropriate cause of action is “dangerous condition of public property,” and this is the only cause of action for which Plaintiff at least lists out some of the elements thereof. However, Plaintiff noticeably omits elements three (the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred), and six (the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing the harm). CACI No. 1100.
ARREOLA VS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
CVRI2105109
Sep 17, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Here, the only appropriate cause of action is “dangerous condition of public property,” and this is the only cause of action for which Plaintiff at least lists out some of the elements thereof. However, Plaintiff noticeably omits elements three (the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred), and six (the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing the harm). CACI No. 1100.
ARREOLA VS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
CVRI2105109
Sep 18, 2022
Riverside County, CA
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
CAROLYN NEMO VS ROBERT MOSKOWITZ ET AL
BC626829
Feb 24, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
dangerous condition" or "[t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition...."
LONG VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
37-2021-00043903-CU-PO-CTL
Feb 03, 2023
San Diego County, CA
public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
37-2022-00018291-CU-PO-CTL
Apr 21, 2023
San Diego County, CA
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
AUGUSTUS VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA
30-2018-00974931-CU-EI-CXC
Jun 22, 2018
Orange County, CA
Public entity liability for injury caused by dangerous condition of property Government Code section 835 provides: Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred
DOMINIC WRIGHT VS JB WHOLESALE ROOFING AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, ET AL.
22STCV15591
Aug 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Public entity liability for injury caused by dangerous condition of property Government Code section 835 provides: Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred
CUAUHTEMOC PEREZ, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
22STCV15991
Aug 30, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
CV2203566
Mar 18, 2023
Marin County, CA
of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
CV2203566
Mar 21, 2023
Marin County, CA
of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
CV2203566
Mar 17, 2023
Marin County, CA
of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
CV2203566
Mar 20, 2023
Marin County, CA
of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
CV2203566
Mar 16, 2023
Marin County, CA
of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
CV2203566
Mar 19, 2023
Marin County, CA
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
SAMANTHA DIAZ VS WALTER UNDERWOOD, ET AL.
19STCV13193
Oct 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Dangerous Condition of Public Property Count 3 of the premises liability cause of action alleges a claim for dangerous condition of public property.
BAILEY VS CITY OF SANTEE
37-2017-00014791-CU-PA-CTL
Sep 28, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
WARREN-TAYLOR VS. PALOMAR HEALTH
37-2019-00003363-CU-PO-CTL
Dec 12, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
of action for dangerous condition of public property.
MYALIK V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PC-20180553
Apr 12, 2019
El Dorado County, CA
To state a cause of action against a public entity under section 835, a plaintiff must plead: (1) a dangerous condition existed on the public property at the time of the injury; (2) the condition proximately caused the injury; (3) the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained; and (4) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the property in sufficient time to have taken measures to protect against it. (Id. at 439.)
SUMMER VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2019-00060387-CU-PO-CTL
Jul 22, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
JENNIFER VALDEZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
BC640280
Sep 24, 2019
Kristin S. Escalante or Georgina Torres Rizk
Los Angeles County, CA
Government Code § 835 provides the basis for liability in an action against a public entity for an injury caused by dangerous condition of public property.
RICHARD SOLINGER VS. CITY OF CAMARILLO
56-2017-00499197-CU-PO-VTA
Nov 29, 2017
Ventura County, CA
Overruled as to the first cause of action for dangerous condition of public property. Sustained as to the second cause of action for general negligence with 20 days leave to amend. Factual and procedural background: On 9/18/23, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant, City of Moreno Valley (“Defendant”) for dangerous condition of public property and general negligence.
GUZMAN VS CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
CVRI2304913
Jan 04, 2024
Riverside County, CA
the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
WILEY VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2016-00001031-CU-PO-CTL
May 24, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Government Code section 835 states that “a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that … [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2
SELF VS. DISIVIO
MSC20-00966
May 03, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Plaintiff could not have reasonably detected the dangerous condition through reasonable care in crossing the street. [¶] The dangerous condition was the sole cause and a substantial factor in injuring Plaintiff.” (FAC ¶¶18-19.) Plaintiff’s FAC, filed on September 10, 2018 asserts one sole cause of action for (1) Personal Injuries Against Public Entity and Employees – [Gov. Code §835] Based on Dangerous Condition on Public Property.
CRISTINA CHAVEZ VS CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK
BC715516
Mar 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
GAUDREAU, ET AL. V. CITY OF LA HABRA
30-2019-01064083
Sep 11, 2020
Orange County, CA
scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
ALEXANDER MUNOZ VS THE CITY OF TORRANCE, ET AL.
19STCV43047
Sep 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Dangerous Condition on Public Property Relevant Law “A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; (2) the dangerous condition caused the injury; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred; and (4) that either (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created
SCOTT DOPKE VS CITY OF PASADENA
BC611949
Nov 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
, or (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in time to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
ALLENE ROSE VS BUSTAMANTE ENTERPRISES INC ET AL
BC723883
Nov 20, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
MARIA SOLIS VS OLIVE VIEW MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
BC568405
Jun 19, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
There is no allegation of any specific "dangerous condition." Plaintiffs have not cited authority that the volume of accidents at an intersection is enough to support a "dangerous condition." There must be something identifiable in the road itself. This is the second chance that plaintiffs have had to identify a dangerous condition and they have not made the allegation. The Court thus denies leave to amend.
MUSSOMELI VS O'BRIEN
37-2017-00045956-CU-PA-CTL
May 01, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
The City's motion is based on the assertions that (1) the traffic signal pole was not a dangerous condition of public property and (2) the owner and driver were the exclusive cause of the injury. DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY The City is a public entity so its liability is defined by statute.
BOLAN VS BRZAK
HG19011406
Jan 01, 2021
Alameda County, CA
scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
ANN GELFAND, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, A PUBLIC ENTITY
23STCV13016
Mar 18, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
ANN GELFAND, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, A PUBLIC ENTITY
23STCV13016
Mar 26, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Dangerous Condition of Public Property and Duty to Warn Generally To state a cause of action against a public entity based on a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835, the plaintiff must allege facts showing that (1) the property was in a dangerous condition when the injury occurred, (2) "the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of
MSC21-01842
Aug 26, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) [t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
ADOLFO VITAL VS CITY OF ARTESIA
18STCV05878
Mar 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or¿ (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
BARBARA MARTIN VS CITY OF CULVER CITY ET AL
BC713308
Dec 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.”
MATTHEW ANDRADE ET AL VS ERIC TREJO
BC585856
Jan 23, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.