305 Railroad Ave Suite 5 Nevada City, CA. (530)265-0186

Skilled Public Property Accident Lawyer

Public Property Injury Lawyer...

GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 830-831.8

 

830.As used in this chapter:
 (a) "Dangerous condition" means 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.
 (b) "Protect against" includes repairing, remedying or correcting
a dangerous condition, providing safeguards against a dangerous
condition, or warning of a dangerous condition.
 (c) "Property of a public entity" and "public property" mean real
or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity, but do
not include easements, encroachments and other property that are
located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or
controlled by the public entity.



830.1.For purposes of this chapter, seismic safety improvements or
fire sprinkler improvements which are owned, built, controlled,
operated, and maintained by the private owner of the building in
which they are installed are not public property or property of a
public entity solely because the improvements were financed, in whole
or in part, by means of the formation of a special assessment
district.



830.2.A condition is not a dangerous condition within the meaning
of this chapter if the trial or appellate court, viewing the evidence
most favorably to the plaintiff, determines as a matter of law that
the risk created by the condition was of such a minor, trivial or
insignificant nature in view of the surrounding circumstances that no
reasonable person would conclude that the condition created a
substantial risk of injury when such property or adjacent property
was used with due care in a manner in which it was reasonably
foreseeable that it would be used.



830.4.A condition is not a dangerous condition within the meaning
of this chapter merely because of the failure to provide regulatory
traffic control signals, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, or
speed restriction signs, as described by the Vehicle Code, or
distinctive roadway markings as described in Section 21460 of the
Vehicle Code.



830.5.(a) Except where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is
applicable, the happening of the accident which results in the injury
is not in and of itself evidence that public property was in a
dangerous condition.
 (b) The fact that action was taken after an injury occurred to
protect against a condition of public property is not evidence that
the public property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the
injury.

GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 835-835.4

 

835.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 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 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.


835.2.(a) A public entity had actual notice of a dangerous
condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 if it
had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or
should have known of its dangerous character.
 (b) A public entity had constructive notice of a dangerous
condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 only
if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such
a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public
entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the
condition and its dangerous character. On the issue of due care,
admissible evidence includes but is not limited to evidence as to:
 (1) Whether the existence of the condition and its dangerous
character would have been discovered by an inspection system that was
reasonably adequate (considering the practicability and cost of
inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the
potential danger to which failure to inspect would give rise) to
inform the public entity whether the property was safe for the use or
uses for which the public entity used or intended others to use the
public property and for uses that the public entity actually knew
others were making of the public property or adjacent property.
 (2) Whether the public entity maintained and operated such an
inspection system with due care and did not discover the condition.

WHEN CAN A GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT BE HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIES OCCURRING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY?

In order for a public entity or governmental defendant to be held liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition on public property, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1.  The property was in a “dangerous condition” at the time the injury occurred.

2. The dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the type of injury that occurred.

3. The entity which owned or managed the land was at fault because:

(a)   The dangerous condition was created by an employee’s wrongful act or omission.

OR

(b) The government entity had sufficient actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, in advance, so that the entity should have taken steps to remedy the condition and/or prevent the injury.