Dangerous Condition of Public Property in California

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

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.”

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

Motion by Defendant City of Merced for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Nathaniel Curz Martinez, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Jennifer Ann Villa on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material of material fact that (1) City of Merced did not own or control the alleged dangerous condition on public property, (2) there was no dangerous condition on public property, the City of Merced did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition on public property and

CCP 437c(p)(2). 1 st cause of action Dangerous Condition of Public Property Government Code 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 Government Code section 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 section 835.2 a sufficient

Government Code §835.4(a) excuses a public entity from liability for a dangerous condition of public property if the act or omission that created the dangerous condition was reasonable. See also Van Kempen v. Hayward Area Park & Recreation District (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 822 [actions of park employees found reasonable to negate possibility of liability under dangerous condition of public property cause of action].

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.”

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 sufficient

Government Code §835.4(a) excuses a public entity from liability for a dangerous condition of public property if the act or omission that created the dangerous condition was reasonable. See also Van Kempen v. Hayward Area Park & Recreation District (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 822 [actions of park employees found reasonable to negate possibility of liability under dangerous condition of public property cause of action].

Government Code §835.4(a) excuses a public entity from liability for a dangerous condition of public property if the act or omission that created the dangerous condition was reasonable. See also Van Kempen v. Hayward Area Park & Recreation District (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 822 [actions of park employees found reasonable to negate possibility of liability under dangerous condition of public property cause of action].

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

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.

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).)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Therefore, [e]ven if there is a dangerous condition on public property, a public entity is liable for injuries caused by it only if the entity was negligent. (( Id. at p. 518 .) A public entity may be negligentand hence liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on its propertyin one of two ways. The public entity is negligent if it created the dangerous condition. [Citation.] ( Martinez v. City of Beverly Hills , supra , 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 518 .)

It also includes allegations that the intersection constituted a dangerous condition to public property. Government Code § 835 allows a government entity to be sued for injury caused by a dangerous condition on its property.

It also includes allegations that the intersection constituted a dangerous condition to public property. Government Code § 835 allows a government entity to be sued for injury caused by a dangerous condition on its property.

First Cause of Action Dangerous Condition of Public Property The elements required to state a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property are: (1) property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; (2) dangerous condition caused the injury; (3) dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred; (4) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the condition

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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."

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.”

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.

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

Third Cause of Action Dangerous Condition of Public Property [S]ection 835 sets out the exclusive conditions under which a public entity is liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property.

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.

Dangerous Condition The elements of the Cause of Action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property, are the following: Property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury; dangerous condition caused the injury; dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred; a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the condition or the public entity had actual or constructive

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.”

The complaint alleges one cause of action for Dangerous Condition of Public Property – Government Code § 810, et seq. against the County [ROA 1].

; 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.

First Cause of Action Dangerous Condition of Public Property A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the Plaintiff establishes the property was (1) in a dangerous condition at the time of 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 that occurred and either: a.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Dangerous Condition of Public Property Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action against the City for liability for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code sections 835 and 815.2.

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.)

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.

With regard to imposing liability for a dangerous condition of public property, Government Code 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 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 either

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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 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.”

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

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

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.

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.

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).)

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Here, the second cause of action is entitled Acts or Omissions of Public Employees Within Scope of Employment. However, the only statutory basis referenced in the FAC is Govt. Code § 835, which provides for liability of a public entity caused by a dangerous condition of public property. 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 a public employee.

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

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.