Dangerous Condition of Public Property in California

What Is a Dangerous Condition of Public Property?

“[A] dangerous condition of public property... as set out in Government Code § 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, § 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.)

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 § 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.)

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 § 830(a).” (Fredette, supra, 187 Cal. App. 3d at 131.)

Rulings for Dangerous Condition of Public Property in California

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.

  • Name

    MUNOZ VS CITY OF INDIO

  • Case No.

    PSC1803347

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2019

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

  • Name

    ENGEBRETSON VS PLAZA MERCADO HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF MICHELLE ENGEBRETSON BY CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

  • Case No.

    PSC2001548

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

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

  • Name

    YUZON VS. CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    MSC17-00618

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ANDERSON VS CITY OF RICHMOND

  • Case No.

    MSC15-02171

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2017

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.

  • Name

    BRIAN GONZALEZ VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23AVCV00591

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2023

  • County

    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

  • Case No.

    PSC 1602057

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2017

“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 dangerouscondition” 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.

  • Name

    GOMEZ, ET AL. V. CITY OF SANTA ANA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00898044-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2017

Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.

  • Name

    FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVPO21-0196891

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.

  • Name

    FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVPO21-0196891

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.

  • Name

    FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVPO21-0196891

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.

  • Name

    FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVPO21-0196891

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.

  • Name

    FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVPO21-0196891

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.

  • Name

    FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVPO21-0196891

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2023

  • County

    Shasta County, CA

Government Code Section 835 provides for liability for a dangerous condition on public property if specific elements are met.

  • Name

    FORSHT VS. COUNTYOF SHASTA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    CVPO21-0196891

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LATTIMORE VS VAL VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    RIC1901532

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

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.”

  • Name

    CAROL CARVEL VS THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV23571

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

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

  • Name

    ORELLANA VS CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

  • Case No.

    PSC1902500

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2019

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

  • Case No.

    FCS057645

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KAY VS. GOLDEN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 217-

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00937940-CU-PP-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

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).)

  • Case No.

    INC 1302238

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2017

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

  • Name

    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

  • Case No.

    PSC1804910

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2018

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.

  • Name

    DEREK POSSON VS URBAN COMMONS QUEENSWAY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV44729

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    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.

  • Case No.

    20STCV47996

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    BERNARDO HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, ET AL. V. INTERSTATE LOGISTICS, ET AL., ANDRELATED CROSS-ACTION

  • Case No.

    15CECG01733

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2017

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.

  • Name

    B&S PROPERTY INVESTMENT, LLC VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

  • Case No.

    18STCV00932

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    FRENCH FABRIC, INC. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

  • Case No.

    18STCV03561

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MCNULTY VS ARCATA

  • Case No.

    MSC20-01367

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

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.”

  • Name

    RENFRO-VINCENT VS. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

  • Case No.

    MSC21-00284

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2021

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DWIGHT SUMMERFIELD, ET AL. VS CITY OF INGLEWOOD, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

  • Case No.

    21STCV30545

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2022

  • County

    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.”

  • Name

    ISAIAH SOLORIO VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC681756

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

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.”

  • Name

    JASON SARGENT TURNER V CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-LCP-2015-0011924

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2019

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."

  • Name

    JACQUE ANDERSON VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00100701-CU-PO-GDS

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2012

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.”

  • Name

    JOCELYN BROOKINS, ET AL. VS A NEW DIRECTION FOR YOU, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV05340

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

Discussion Defendant demurs on Plaintiffs causes of action for willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of public property.

  • Name

    VIVIANA BAUTISTA VS PLATINUM BANQUET HALL & AUDITORIUM INC.

  • Case No.

    22STCV16449

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2022

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.

  • Name

    HEIDI LUCAS, LINDA ROBERTS V. NIRANJAN SHARMA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    17CV-0354

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

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.”

  • Name

    LAURA MCGHEE VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC654125

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

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.

  • Name

    COOPER VS HOLLANDS CUSTOM CABINETS

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00026166-CU-PA-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

; 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.

  • Name

    YUZON VS. CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    MSC17-00618

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    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

  • Name

    RAMIREZ VS BROWN

  • Case No.

    PSC1801596

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2023

  • County

    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

  • Name

    MICHAEL MORRIS VS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV37624

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

have discovered this dangerous condition if they had exercised due care as public entities.

  • Name

    CECILIA SANTANA ET AL. VS MICHELE LYNN BROOKS ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UAT-2018-0011978

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    CHRISTIE REPPART VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

  • Case No.

    BC677638

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MARIA DIAZ MORALES VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV04053

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2023

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.

  • Name

    SUSAN DUNN, SHERIDAN DUNN V. SHERMAN KEMP, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    16CVP-0140

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2018

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.”

  • Name

    TRUJILLO V. CALTRANS

  • Case No.

    PC-20180033

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to identify any cognizable dangerous condition of public property.

  • Name

    MARK ARRIOLA VS WHITTIER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    20STCV16849

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2022

  • County

    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

  • Name

    HONGZHI, ET AL. V. YAO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CV325959

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

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.

  • Name

    COLIN VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00046861-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2019

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.

  • Name

    GUERRERO VS. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00949194-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

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).)

  • Case No.

    INC 1302238

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

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.”

  • Name

    LAURA MCGHEE VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC654125

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CAMPOS VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    RIC1815929

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CHAU VS. DENSON

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01008072-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2018

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.

  • Name

    RIAHI VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    RG18914082

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2021

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

  • Name

    CARL NUHFER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC578109

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2017

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.

  • Name

    VANESSA VASQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    BC677542

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2018

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.

  • Name

    DEBRA GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF CERRITOS, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV24415

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2022

  • County

    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

  • Name

    LEEANA KLIGIS VS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00033066-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    SPARKS VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

  • Case No.

    CVRI2103982

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AIMEE HERNANDEZ ET AL VS ANNETTE GREEN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC678601

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

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

  • Name

    CRISTINA CHAVEZ VS CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

  • Case No.

    BC715516

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ARREOLA VS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2105109

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ARREOLA VS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2105109

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ARREOLA VS CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2105109

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2022

  • County

    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.”

  • Name

    CAROLYN NEMO VS ROBERT MOSKOWITZ ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC626829

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

dangerous condition" or "[t]he public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition...."

  • Name

    LONG VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

  • Case No.

    37-2021-00043903-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00018291-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 21, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AUGUSTUS VS. CITY OF SANTA ANA

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00974931-CU-EI-CXC

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2018

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

  • Name

    DOMINIC WRIGHT VS JB WHOLESALE ROOFING AND BUILDING SUPPLIES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV15591

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2023

  • County

    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

  • Name

    CUAUHTEMOC PEREZ, ET AL. VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV15991

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2023

  • County

    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.”

  • Case No.

    CV2203566

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2023

  • County

    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.”

  • Case No.

    CV2203566

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2023

  • County

    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.”

  • Case No.

    CV2203566

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2023

  • County

    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.”

  • Case No.

    CV2203566

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2023

  • County

    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.”

  • Case No.

    CV2203566

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2023

  • County

    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.”

  • Case No.

    CV2203566

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2023

  • County

    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.”

  • Name

    SAMANTHA DIAZ VS WALTER UNDERWOOD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV13193

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

Dangerous Condition of Public Property Count 3 of the premises liability cause of action alleges a claim for dangerous condition of public property.

  • Name

    BAILEY VS CITY OF SANTEE

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00014791-CU-PA-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2017

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.

  • Name

    WARREN-TAYLOR VS. PALOMAR HEALTH

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00003363-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

of action for dangerous condition of public property.

  • Name

    MYALIK V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    PC-20180553

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    SUMMER VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00060387-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

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.”

  • Name

    JENNIFER VALDEZ VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC640280

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Judge

    Kristin S. Escalante or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    RICHARD SOLINGER VS. CITY OF CAMARILLO

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00499197-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2017

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.

  • Name

    GUZMAN VS CITY OF MORENO VALLEY

  • Case No.

    CVRI2304913

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    WILEY VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00001031-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 24, 2017

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

  • Name

    SELF VS. DISIVIO

  • Case No.

    MSC20-00966

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2021

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.

  • Name

    CRISTINA CHAVEZ VS CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

  • Case No.

    BC715516

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

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.

  • Name

    GAUDREAU, ET AL. V. CITY OF LA HABRA

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01064083

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ALEXANDER MUNOZ VS THE CITY OF TORRANCE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV43047

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2022

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

  • Name

    SCOTT DOPKE VS CITY OF PASADENA

  • Case No.

    BC611949

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2019

  • County

    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.”

  • Name

    ALLENE ROSE VS BUSTAMANTE ENTERPRISES INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC723883

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MARIA SOLIS VS OLIVE VIEW MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC568405

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2017

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.

  • Name

    MUSSOMELI VS O'BRIEN

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00045956-CU-PA-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2019

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.

  • Name

    BOLAN VS BRZAK

  • Case No.

    HG19011406

  • Hearing

    Jan 01, 2021

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.

  • Name

    ANN GELFAND, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, A PUBLIC ENTITY

  • Case No.

    23STCV13016

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2024

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.

  • Name

    ANN GELFAND, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, A PUBLIC ENTITY

  • Case No.

    23STCV13016

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2024

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

  • Case No.

    MSC21-01842

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2022

  • County

    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.”

  • Name

    ADOLFO VITAL VS CITY OF ARTESIA

  • Case No.

    18STCV05878

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2019

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.”

  • Name

    BARBARA MARTIN VS CITY OF CULVER CITY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC713308

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

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.”

  • Name

    MATTHEW ANDRADE ET AL VS ERIC TREJO

  • Case No.

    BC585856

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2018

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope