Everardo Franco v. Terrence Scott, et al.

California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (esa sued as State of

California) (Caltrans). The operative Fist Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges the following

two causes of action against Defendants: (1) negligence (against Scott); and (2) dangerous

condition of public property (against Caltrans). Scott was defaulted. Caltrans answered

and filed a Cross-Complaint against Scott. Plaintiff alleges that on January 11, 2023, he

was riding his bicycle heading northbound intersecting the ramp to the US I-15 S on

Palmdale Road in Victorville when he was struck by a vehicle driven by Scott, who was

driving eastbound on Palmdale Road approaching the US I-15 S Ramp. (FAC ¶¶ 11-12.)

Scott was traveling at an excessive speed when he struck Plaintiff. (FAC ¶¶ 13-14.)

Plaintiff further alleges the pedestrian walkway was lacking in traffic controls for

pedestrians, flash roadway lighting to indicate the crosswalk is in use, bar lines to indicate

to vehicles the existence of a crosswalk, and pedestrian crossing signage laid completely

and directly in the path of the I-15 South on ramp where vehicular traffic merges, creating a

hazardous situation for both pedestrians and drivers due to reduced visibility and

increased risk of accidents. (FAC ¶ 24.)

Caltrans submitted a motion for Summary judgment. Franco opposes. Caltrans replied.

RULING

Evidentiary Ruling:

CalTrans objects to the following: Exhibit G. The court sustains the objection on CEC 702;

1400; 1410; Concerning Exhibits H, B, F the court overrules the objections because the

objections lack merit; The objections concerning the identified parts of the Shatnawi’s

Declaration Executed on July 9th 2026 is overruled as these objections go to weight not

admissibility.

Design Immunity under Government code section 830.6:

Government Code section 830.6 confers immunity on public entities for injuries

attributed to a design feature when the design is approved prior to construction by

appropriate officials or plans conform to previously approved standards and the design

plans are reasonable. (Gov. Code, § 830.6.) When design immunity is established, a court

may deny recovery even if a dangerous condition is shown. (Gonzales v. City of Atwater

(2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 929, 945-946 (Gonzales).) Government Code section 830.6 requires a

public entity to prove three elements: (1) a causal relationship between the plan or design

and a plaintiff’s injuries, (2) discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to

construction, and (3) substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or

design. (Gonzales, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 945-946.) Design immunity “is limited to a

design-caused accident” (Flournoy v. State of California (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 806, 811),

and the injury-producing feature must have been part of the plan approved by the entity. “If

the injury-producing element was not part of the discretionary approved design, immunity

is defeated.” (Grenier v. City of Irwindale (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 931, 941, fn. 7 (Grenier);

see also Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d 318, 325-326.)

Caltrans emphasizes that the ordinary summary judgment rules “are not fully

applicable” to design immunity. That is true of the third element, “substantial evidence of

reasonableness,” which the court resolves. Everything else in this motion, causation and

discretionary approval, the three loss-of-immunity elements, dangerousness, notice, the

section 830.8 concealed-trap exception, and proximate cause, is a question of fact

governed by ordinary summary judgment standards. (Cornette v. Department of

Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 66-67, 74-75; Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27

Cal.4th 1112, 1133.)

So here, as alleged, the injury-producing condition is a pedestrian crossing over a

freeway on-ramp devoid of any marking, delineation, warning, or control. By Caltrans’ own

admission, the 2010 plans contained no crosswalk, no pavement delineation sheet, and

no signage addressing the crossing whatsoever (UF Nos. 33 and 48; Alejandre Depo. at

20:6–16, 29:9–25). The older 1955/1971/1976 roadway plans contain no treatment of a

pedestrian crossing that did not exist until 2010. The alleged condition that injured Plaintiff

is not a designed feature at all; it is asserted to be a designed omission that no plan

addressed and no engineer analyzed. Under Cameron and Grenier, this is sufficient to

deny Caltrans’ MSJ as to design immunity as a triable issue of material fact exists on

whether or not the design immunity applies or if it was lost due to significant changes

performed by Caltrans. Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence through his expert

witness and the depositions of Caltrans’ own witnesses to defeat this argument on

summary judgment as a matter of law. Further, design immunity does not bar Plaintiff’s

failure-to-warn/ failure-to-protect theory. (Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

(2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, 660 (Tansavatdi).)

The court has considered the issues concerning Sign Immunity under Government code

sections 830.4 and 830.8 and Physical defect in the property that may have increased or

intensified danger to users of the property to third-party conduct. The court’s analysis and

deciding the initial immunity issues is sufficient for its ruling on this Summary Judgment

motion.

///

///

____________________________________

Michael A. Dauber, Judge San Bernardino County Superior Court

5