Yardley v. County of Imperial CA4/1 (2015) · DecisionDepot
Yardley v. County of Imperial CA4/1
California Court of Appeal May 15, 2015 No. D064757Unpublished
Filed 5/15/15 Yardley v. County of Imperial CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RAY ALAN YARDLEY, et al. D064757
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. ECU04902, ECU04959, ECU05024, COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, ECU05033)
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Jeffrey B.
Jones, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Reed Smith, Margaret M. Grignon, Paul D. Fogel and Kasey J. Curtis; Law
Offices of C. Ray Carlson, C. Ray Carlson and Jennifer B. Smith; Alder Law, C. Michael
Alder, Stephen K. McElroy and Jennifer Burke, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
The Viviano Law Firm and Charles A. Viviano, for Defendant and Respondent.
This case arises from an automobile accident in Imperial County (County) in
which a semi tractor-trailer collided with a second vehicle carrying six people. In the
second vehicle, three people were killed and three sustained serious injuries. The
survivors and the children of those killed in the second vehicle (collectively plaintiffs)
brought actions against several defendants, including the County. Those actions were
later consolidated. Plaintiffs alleged two causes of action against the County: (1)
negligence; and (2) dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code,1 § 835).
initial responding officer " 'must assume preliminary incident command and take the
necessary steps towards establishing control of the situation. It becomes the officer's
responsibility . . . to initiate appropriate notifications, isolate the hazard, control ingress,
egress to the area, continually gather and communicate further information, implement a
plan of action and reassess . . . and evaluate the effectiveness of the operation and make
modifications as necessary.' "
Deputy Badena violated these guidelines. Although his patrol car was equipped
with emergency flashing lights, emergency flares, and orange safety cones, he did not
remain at the scene or deploy this equipment. Instead, he radioed the sheriff's dispatcher
about the misdirected stop sign and then left. Plaintiffs' expert on police conduct and
training would testify that a law enforcement officer under these circumstances should
and could have taken steps to secure the intersection to make it safe until the sign could
be repaired.
The County owns Shank Road and the State of California (State) owns Highway
115. Generally, the State owns an intersection if it owns at least one of the intersecting
5
streets. The State owns the defective stop sign, and was responsible for maintaining it.
However, the stop sign was located on property owned by the County, and therefore the
State was required to obtain the County's permission and consent to place the sign on the
property.
Procedural Background
Plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaints against the County alleged two causes
of action: (1) dangerous condition of public property (§ 835); and (2) negligence based
on a vicarious liability theory.2 Although the County did not file any dispositive pretrial
motions, in ruling on the in limine motions, the court sua sponte questioned whether the
County owed plaintiffs a duty under the alleged factual circumstances and/or whether the
facts supported plaintiffs' claim that the County was liable for a dangerous condition
based on Deputy Badena's knowledge of the defective sign.
The court and parties then engaged in a series of procedural steps, leading to an
agreement that plaintiffs would provide an offer of proof, and the County would move for
a nonsuit.3 On the day scheduled for the offer of proof, the court orally raised additional
issues based on its own independent research, including whether the County could be
2 Plaintiffs also initially named the State as a party but later dismissed the State after the State moved for summary judgment on grounds it had not received notice in sufficient time to have taken preventive measures. Plaintiffs earlier settled with Perkins at his insurance limits.
3 We do not detail these procedural steps here because they are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal. 6
held liable if the facts showed the State owned and maintained the stop sign and the
accident occurred at the State-controlled intersection.
Immediately following this discussion, plaintiffs' counsel presented an offer of
proof based on the facts summarized above. After considering these facts and allowing
the parties to brief the issues, the court granted a nonsuit on both of plaintiffs' claims
(negligence and section 835 dangerous condition) and entered judgment in the County's
favor. The court identified numerous grounds for its ruling, but we need not detail those
grounds here. Under the applicable de novo standard, we review the court's conclusion,
and not its reasoning or rationale. (See County of Orange v. Association of Orange
County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 32.)
DISCUSSION
I. Nonsuit Review Standards
"A defendant is entitled to nonsuit if the trial court determines as a matter of law
that the plaintiff's evidence, when viewed most favorably to the plaintiff under the
substantial evidence test, is insufficient to permit a jury to find in his favor." (Mendoza v.
City of West Covina (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 702, 713.) Where, as here, the nonsuit was
based on counsel's statement, we must assume plaintiffs can prove all the stated facts.
(See Cooper, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 891.)
A nonsuit after the opening statement or an offer of proof is not favored and is
rarely granted. (Cooper, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 891-892; Galanek v. Wismar
(1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1424; John Norton Farms, Inc. v. Todagco (1981) 124
Cal.App.3d 149, 171-172.) A nonsuit is warranted only if it is clear there will be no
7
evidence to support a judgment in the plaintiff's favor. (Willis v. Gordon (1978) 20
Cal.3d 629, 633; Ewing v. Northridge Hospital Medical Center (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th
1289, 1296.) Affirmative defenses generally do not support a nonsuit because a plaintiff
does not have the burden to negate the applicability of an affirmative defense. (See
Inderbitzen v. Lane Hospital (1932) 124 Cal.App. 462, 465-466.) However, a nonsuit
motion may be granted if the opening statement contains " 'uncontrovertible proof' " of
the applicability of the affirmative defense. (Galanek, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 1424;
Abeyta v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1041.) We review a nonsuit de
novo. (Saunders v. Taylor (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541-1542.)
Applying these standards, we examine plaintiffs' contention the court erred in
granting nonsuit on each of their causes of action: (1) dangerous condition of
government property under section 835; and (2) negligence based on a vicarious liability
theory.
II. Dangerous Condition Cause of Action
A. Applicable Legal Principles
A governmental entity is not liable for an injury unless liability is specifically
permitted by a statute. (§ 815; see State ex rel. Dept. of California Highway Patrol v.
Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1002, 1009.) Section 835 states that a public entity
may be held liable for a dangerous condition of public property under certain
circumstances. (See Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1126
(Metcalf); Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 68.) Section
835 provides:
8
"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." (Italics added.)
"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." (§ 830, subd. (a).) Section 830.4 excludes from the
"dangerous condition" definition a condition resulting "merely" from the "failure to
provide" certain "regulatory" traffic control devices or signs. (§ 830.4.) " 'Protect
against' includes repairing, remedying or correcting a dangerous condition, providing
safeguards against a dangerous condition, or warning of a dangerous condition." (§ 830,
subd. (b), italics added.) " '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, subd. (c).)
9
A section 835 cause of action is subject to a reasonableness defense. "A public
entity is not liable . . . for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the
public entity establishes that the action it took to protect against the risk of injury . . . or
its failure to take such action was reasonable." (§ 835.4, subd. (b); see Biron v. City of
Redding (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1281.) Reasonableness is a question of fact, and
requires the factfinder to consider the "time and opportunity" the public entity had to take
action and to weigh the probability and gravity of potential injury against the
"practicability and cost of protecting against the risk of such injury." (§ 835.4, subd. (b);
see Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1137; Biron, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1281-
1282.)
B. Analysis
In his offer of proof, plaintiffs' counsel described facts showing that at the time of
the collision: (1) the stop sign was misdirected and appeared to face southbound
Highway 115 traffic instead of eastbound Shank Road traffic; (2) this condition made it
reasonably foreseeable a driver on Shank Road would misperceive the need to stop and
that an accident would occur in the Highway 115/Shank Road intersection; (3) Deputy
Badena was aware of the problem about 55 minutes before the accident and notified his
dispatcher of the need to repair the condition; (4) Deputy Badena violated applicable
guidelines and training standards by leaving the scene and/or by failing to provide
warning equipment (that he had available to him) before he left the scene; and (5) the
misdirected sign, along with the absence of warning signals, made Shank Road a
10
dangerous public street and was a substantial factor in causing the automobile collision
and plaintiffs' injuries.
As they did below, plaintiffs argue that this offer of proof established the basis for
a section 835 claim. They say that the County's property (Shank Road)—with a
misdirected sign—was in a dangerous condition that created a substantial risk of injury to
drivers on Shank Road and on Highway 115. They argue that the County had actual
notice of the dangerous condition through Deputy Badena's observations and telephone
call to dispatch, and Deputy Badena had (as plaintiffs' experts would testify) adequate
time to prevent injuries by remaining at the scene or providing warning equipment at the
scene. Additionally, they argue that this claim is not barred by the sign immunity statute
(§ 830.4) because the claim does not arise from the mere "failure to provide" a traffic
control sign, and instead concerns the County's failure to warn about a damaged and
defective sign that misled drivers.
The County counters that even assuming the facts stated in plaintiffs' offer of
proof are true, they do not support a viable claim because (1) the State owned and
controlled the defective stop sign and/or plaintiffs were traveling on State-owned
Highway 115 at the time of the accident; (2) the County did not have sufficient notice of,
and an opportunity to repair, the dangerous condition within the meaning of section 835,
subdivision (b); and (3) the County was immune from liability under section 830.4 (sign
The County contends it was not responsible for the misdirected sign as a matter of
law because the sign was owned and controlled by the State. Plaintiffs counter that this
fact is immaterial because the County owned and/or controlled the land upon which the
sign was placed. Plaintiffs further argue that ownership of the sign and/or the land upon
which the sign was placed is not dispositive because even assuming the State owned the
land and sign, a public entity may have a duty to protect (including to warn) against a
condition on adjacent property that makes the defendant's property dangerous. We agree
with this latter argument and determine it is applicable here.
Section 830, subdivision (a) provides that a "dangerous condition" is "a condition
of property that creates a substantial . . . 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." (Italics added.) The California Law Revision Commission comments to
section 830 state: "A public entity may be liable only for dangerous conditions of its own
property. But its own property may be considered dangerous if it creates a substantial
risk of injury to . . . persons on adjacent property; and its own property may be
considered dangerous if a condition on the adjacent property exposes those using the
public property to a substantial risk of injury." (Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 32 pt. 2
West's Ann. Gov. Code (2012 ed.) foll. § 830, p. 7, italics added; see Bonanno v. Central
Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 148 (Bonanno).) These
comments reflect the "intent . . . of the legislators who subsequently enacted" the statute.
(Bonanno, supra, at p. 148.)
12
"[C]onsistent with the Law Revision Commission comment," courts have long
"recognized that hazards present on adjoining property may create a dangerous condition
of public property when users of the public property are necessarily exposed to those
risks." (Bonanno, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 149; see, e.g., Joyce v. Simi Valley Unified
School Dist. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 292, 298-299; Bassett v. Lakeside Inn, Inc. (2006)
140 Cal.App.4th 863, 868-869; County of Ventura v. City of Camarillo (1978) 80
Cal.App.3d 1019, 1025 ["[i]t is no defense in this case that the eventual dangerous
condition that caused the accident was on property outside [the City's] jurisdiction"]);
Branzel v. Concord (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 68, 75 [city liable where private electric
company's power lines on property adjacent to a city-owned model airplane park created
a dangerous condition of the park when the lines exposed those using the park to a risk of
harm]; De La Rosa v. City of San Bernardino (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 739, 745-746 (De La
Rosa); Bakity v. County of Riverside (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 24, 30-31 (Bakity) [even if
trees were located on adjacent property "jury could nevertheless have reasonably inferred
that by reason of their proximity to the intersection they exposed motorists using the
highway to a substantial risk of injury"]; Dudum v. City of San Mateo (1959) 167
Cal.App.2d 593, 597 [trees on private property obscured stop sign creating a dangerous
condition on city road]; Rose v. County of Orange (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 688, 690-693.)
Under this settled authority, a public entity may be held responsible for failing to
protect individuals from foreseeable dangers posed to those who use its property, even if
the danger stems from a condition on adjacent property. "[A] public entity can be held
liable for an accident caused by a condition that exists on property adjacent to a public
13
highway if the condition ' "is so connected with or in such proximity to the traveled
portion of the highway as to render it unsafe to those traveling thereon." ' " (Carson v.
Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, 841(Carson).) In this case, the
misdirected stop sign created a dangerous condition and made driving unsafe on the
County-owned road. Although the County may not have had the power or duty to repair
the sign, it had the authority to warn drivers on County-owned Shank Road about this
condition.
The County argues that even if it "arguably had a duty to warn [drivers on the]
County-owned . . . Shank Road of the potential danger created by the damaged stop
sign," it owed no duty to plaintiffs who were driving on the state-owned Highway 115.
In asserting this argument, the County acknowledges that the misdirected stop sign "made
it more dangerous for vehicles traveling on either Shank Road or Highway 115 . . . to
enter into the intersection," but argues that it cannot be held legally responsible because
"the damaged stop sign did not make Shank Road more dangerous, but only made the
[state-owned] intersection more dangerous." (Italics added.)
This line of reasoning fails on several grounds. First, the County's attempt to
separate the stop sign from the condition of Shank Road is unpersuasive. The County
argues the only relevant defect was the condition of the stop sign, claiming there was
nothing "unusually 'dangerous' about Shank Road . . . ." However, assuming the truth of
plaintiffs' factual statement that the stop sign was misdirected and appeared to drivers on
Shank Road that it was intended for Highway 115 drivers, Shank Road became a
hazardous road, and this hazard placed drivers on the state-owned Highway 115 in
14
substantial danger. The sign and the road were necessarily intertwined for purposes of
dangerous condition analysis. As defined in the statutes, " '[d]angerous condition' means
a condition of property that creates a substantial . . . risk of injury when such property or
adjacent property is used with due care . . . ." (§ 830, subd. (a).) The misdirected stop
sign created a dangerous condition on County-owned Shank Road and this dangerous
condition created a substantial risk of injury to those driving on Highway 115 near Shank
Road. Because of the misdirected stop sign, Shank Road became dangerous to drivers on
Highway 115.
The County contends that Shank Road was not in a " 'dangerous condition' "
because it was "physically unchanged" after the stop sign was damaged. However, the
statutes do not require a physical change on the property to establish a dangerous
condition. As explained by the California Supreme Court, although a "dangerous
condition" generally "exists when public property is physically damaged, deteriorated, or
defective . . . , public property has also been considered to be in a dangerous condition
'because of . . . latent hazards associated with its normal use.' " (Bonanno, supra, 30
Cal.4th at pp. 148-149.) Here, plaintiffs' statement of their evidence supported that
Shank Road contained or constituted a latent hazardous condition because with a speed
limit of 55 miles per hour and a misdirected stop sign, it appeared to drivers that they had
the right-of-way and there was no reason to slow or stop. Plaintiffs' offer of proof further
showed that drivers on Shank Road would not see the intersection until they came near
Highway 115. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, a factfinder could conclude that
these conditions created a risk of substantial danger to Highway 115 drivers who had no
15
way of knowing of the hazard. The County arguably had the authority and ability to
prevent injuries arising from this risk by warning drivers on Shank Road that they needed
to stop and/or that they did not have the right-of-way (pending the sign repair). (See
§ 830, subd. b).)
Further contrary to the County's assertions, the fact that the State may have
"owned" the Highway 115/Shank Road intersection does not preclude liability. The
courts have recognized that a public entity may be held liable for a dangerous condition if
the dangerous condition contributed to the injury, even if the actual injury takes place on
property that is not owned by the public entity. (See Bonanno, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p.
151 [rejecting defendant's "contention that it cannot be liable for an injury occurring on
property (the street) it neither owned nor controlled"]; Holmes v. City of Oakland (1968)
260 Cal.App.2d 378, 390 [finding no precedential support for the proposition that "the
injury must occur on the public property in order for liability to attach"]; Rose v. County
of Orange, supra, 94 Cal.App.2d at pp. 690-693 [county liable where plaintiffs were
injured in unprotected ditch along state road that intersected county road].)
We recognize that none of these decisions is precisely identical to the facts here
because the County did not own the originating defect (stop sign) or the property where
the accident occurred (intersection). But the general principles of these cases logically
apply. For example, in Bonanno the "dangerous condition" of public property was the
location of a bus stop near a dangerous uncontrolled crosswalk. (Bonanno, supra, 30
Cal.4th at pp. 146-156.) The Bonanno court held that the defendant owner of the bus
stop (a public transit district) could be held liable under section 835 even though the
16
plaintiff was injured in the crosswalk of a street that it "neither owned nor controlled."
(Bonanno, supra, at p. 151.) The court reasoned that the defendant "owned and
controlled its own bus stop, and a condition of that property, its physical situation, caused
users of the bus stop to be at risk from the immediately adjacent property . . . ." (Ibid.)
As in Bonanno it was a condition of the County's own property (Shank Road when
used with the accompanying misdirected stop sign) that caused users of an adjacent
property (here Highway 115; in Bonanno the crosswalk) to be at risk. Plaintiffs' asserted
facts show their injuries were proximately caused by the Shank Road driver who was
misled by the defective stop sign to believe he had the right-of-way at the intersection.
This constitutes a dangerous condition on County property that created a reasonably
foreseeable risk of the kind of injury plaintiffs suffered and thus was sufficient for section
835 liability.
2. Notice and Adequacy of Time To Take Corrective Measures
The County alternatively contends it could not be held liable under section 835
because its high-level or managerial employees did not have sufficient notice and
opportunity to remedy the dangerous condition.
To establish liability under section 835, the plaintiff must show either: (1) a
public employee's "negligent or wrongful act or omission . . . created the dangerous
condition" or (2) "[t]he 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." (§ 835, subds. (a), (b).)
17
In this case, plaintiffs relied on the second (notice) theory, and asserted the County
had actual notice through facts showing Officer Badena discovered the defect about 55
minutes before the collision and reported the problem to his dispatcher. Plaintiffs
identified facts showing the County had the opportunity and ability to protect against the
danger because Deputy Badena had safety equipment in his vehicle that he could have
used to warn eastbound Shank Road drivers of the misdirected signal until the sign could
be repaired. Plaintiffs' counsel also stated that he intended to call expert witnesses who
would opine that providing such warnings before leaving the scene was within the course
and scope of Deputy Badena's job duties.
For purposes of the nonsuit motion, the County does not dispute that these facts
establish Deputy Badena had actual notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time
before the accident to have taken reasonable measures to protect (warn) against the
dangerous condition. The County further does not dispute that providing such warnings
fell within the scope of Deputy Badena's official duties to enhance road safety and
prevent traffic accidents. According to the offer of proof, Deputy Badena was
specifically trained to deal with situations of defective traffic signs and had the
equipment to provide warning and other safety measures.
But the County argues that this notice and opportunity to protect does not trigger
section 835 liability because "as a matter of law, the public entity's management and
policymakers must be given time after receiving notice of the purported 'dangerous
condition' from lower-level employees to assess the degree of potential danger, review
resources and personnel that are available to deal with the purported 'dangerous
18
condition,' and on an as-needed and as-available basis, assign personnel to or implement
procedures to warn the public about it." The County maintains that under section 835,
"the public entity must be given sufficient reasonable time to assign personnel to resolve
a dangerous condition without requiring that the public employee who first discovers that
dangerous condition must indefinitely remain on the scene to warn others of the danger
until the 'cleanup' crews arrive."
The County cites no authority—not a single case or statute or secondary source—
to support this argument and it is inconsistent with applicable law.
It has long been settled that imputed notice, as defined by ordinary agency rules,
satisfies the notice requirement of section 835. (Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist.
(1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 835.) As the high court explained, section 835's predecessor statute
imposed liability on public entities for dangerous conditions of public property "only when
the governing board or person 'authorized to remedy the condition' had 'knowledge or
notice' " of the dangerous condition. (Brown, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 835.) However, in
enacting section 835 in 1963, the Legislature abolished this requirement. It elected to make
" '[t]he ordinary rules for imputing the knowledge of an employee to an employer
applicable to public entities just as they are applicable to private owners and occupiers of
land.' " (Brown, supra, at p. 835, quoting 4 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (Jan. 1963) p.
825.) The Law Revision Commission found those rules to be "sensible and workable." (4
Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep., supra, at p. 825.)
Under these rules, the imputation of notice and duty to protect occurs if the agent
possessed the relevant knowledge in the course and scope of his or her employment and
19
had the ability and authority to take effective remedial action. (See Carson, supra, 36
Cal.3d at p. 844 [evidence that "police officers regularly patrolled the intersection"
supported a finding that city had constructive notice of sign that made intersection
dangerous]; Straughter v. State of California (1976) 89 Cal.App.3d 102, 109-112 [state
had sufficient notice of existence of dangerous condition of road through state highway
superintendent's awareness of condition within hours before the accident]; Briggs v. State
of California (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 489, 496 ["evidence was sufficient to show actual
knowledge of the dangerous condition on the part of at least one person who admittedly
had authority to remedy such situation"]; Civ. Code, § 2332; 2 Coates, et al., Cal.
Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2014) § 12.46, p. 923.)
The applicability of these principles to section 835 is supported by section 840.2,
which governs individual public employee liability for a dangerous condition of public
property. Section 840.2, subdivision (b) states a public employee may be held liable if:
"[t]he employee had the authority and it was his responsibility to take adequate measures to protect against the dangerous condition at the expense of the public entity and the funds and other means for doing so were immediately available to him, and he 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."
By providing for individual liability if an employee had the requisite notice, means,
authority and resources, the Legislature necessarily intended that liability may be triggered
20
even if a supervisor or a "policymaker" did not have an extended period to reflect on the
situation.4
For purposes of the nonsuit motion, Deputy Badena's awareness of the problem
and his authority and opportunity to take minimal remedial measures were sufficient to
satisfy the notice element of section 835, subdivision (b). A jury could conclude that a
peace officer, whose job responsibilities include protecting the motoring public from road
hazards, who is trained and equipped to handle situations like the misdirected sign, and
who has the tools necessary to do so at his immediate disposal, would have the authority
and ability to take measures to protect the public from the defective stop sign, and that
this notice and opportunity to act can be imputed to Deputy Badena's employer. (See
Straughter v. State of California, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d at p. 112 [sufficient evidence to
support jury's implied findings that the state had notice and opportunity to protect against
dangerous icy highway where it was "uncontroverted that no warnings were given,
although [highway foreman] had amber lights in his truck for that purpose"].)
The County argues that imposing normal agency principles in this situation ignores
"the real world, where at any given time there are multiple concurrent demands upon its
personnel, most prominently its law enforcement personnel, for the delivery of immediate
services." Although we agree these factors are relevant in the statutory analysis, they do
not bar liability here as a matter of law.
4 In noting the contents of section 840.2, we do not intend to define the scope of an individual employee's liability for a dangerous condition. The issue here concerns only the public entity's liability and neither party has briefed, nor have we analyzed, the precise parameters of individual liability under section 840.2. 21
Under section 835.4, a public entity cannot be held liable for a dangerous condition
if its actions or its failure to take action were "reasonable." The statute directs that "the
reasonableness of the action or inaction of the public entity shall be determined by taking
into consideration the time and opportunity it had to take action and by weighing the
probability and gravity of potential injury to persons and property foreseeably exposed to
the risk of injury against the practicability and cost of protecting against the risk of such
injury." (§ 835.4, subd. (b).) Under this standard, a jury may consider the reasonableness
of the County's actions (including its competing demands) in determining liability, but the
facts do not establish that the actions of the County (and/or its authorized agents) were
reasonable as a matter of law.
The County argues that public policy favors limiting liability under the facts here.
However, the scope of a public entity's liability is determined strictly by the statute; there is
no room for a trial court or this court to impose its own policy views in determining
whether the plaintiffs should or should not be entitled to recover.
3. Claimed Immunities
The County contends the court's order can be justified based on several statutory
immunities. None of these defenses bars plaintiffs' claims at the nonsuit stage.
a. Section 830.4
County first contends the nonsuit was proper because it is immune under section
830.4 for its failure to install a stop sign at the intersection.
Section 830.4 states: "A condition is not a dangerous condition within the
meaning of this chapter merely because of the failure to provide regulatory traffic control
22
signals, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, or speed restriction signs, as described by the
Vehicle Code, or distinctive roadway markings . . . ." Interpreting this code section, a
Court of Appeal held a public entity is absolutely immune from section 835 claims
alleging a dangerous condition based on the entity's removal of a stop sign. (City of
South Lake Tahoe v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 971 (South Lake Tahoe).
Relying on South Lake Tahoe, the County argues it was immune from liability for the
condition of the stop sign. This reliance is misplaced.
In South Lake Tahoe, the plaintiff and the defendant were both injured in a
collision in an intersection that generally had stop signs for eastbound/westbound traffic.
(South Lake Tahoe, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at pp. 973-974.) Earlier in the day, there had
been another accident, and the stop sign controlling westbound traffic had been knocked
down and had not been replaced. (Id. at p. 974.) Both the plaintiff and the defendant
sued the city, alleging the absence of a stop sign for westbound traffic created a
dangerous condition of public property under section 835. (South Lake Tahoe, supra, at
p. 974.) The city moved for summary judgment, claiming that section 830.4 precludes
liability as a matter of law. The superior court denied the motion, and the reviewing
court reversed. (Id. at pp. 974-975.)
The Court of Appeal reasoned that because section 830.4 provides that a public
entity has "no duty to provide a stop sign in the first place," the city cannot "become
liable if the sign is removed, whatever the reason for the removal be. . . . To conclude
otherwise would require us to accept the proposition that once the stop sign . . . was in
place it could never be removed with impunity, and that motorists . . . could forever after
23
rely on its presence. This reasoning . . . finds no support in statute or case law. . . . [¶]
[A]t the time of the accident, westbound vehicles . . . were entering an uncontrolled
intersection . . . and drivers were subject to the rules of the road applicable at such a
crossing. . . . [The city] 'cannot be charged with foreseeing that a motorist will recklessly
disobey traffic laws . . . .' 'At some point, citizens must take responsibility for their
conduct when there is an obvious roadway hazard . . . . The government cannot provide
round-the-clock staffing to respond to every eventuality, particularly when the need to
take precautions is self-evident and the law is clear on how motorists must behave under
the circumstances. . . . Nothing in the record indicates that defendant city had a duty to
place a stop sign [at the intersection], or that, having done so, it was obligated to keep the
sign in place indefinitely." (South Lake Tahoe, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at pp. 978-979.)
In so ruling, the court distinguished the line of decisions rejecting the section
830.4 governmental immunity defense where the parties sought relief for injuries
resulting from claimed "obscured stop signs." (South Lake Tahoe, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 976-977; see Bakity, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at pp. 30-31 [section 840.4 immunity
unavailable where sign was deceptive because it was located far from where stop was
required]; De La Rosa, supra, 16 Cal.App.3d 739 [stop sign was positioned in such a way
that it was obscured from view by trees and shrubbery].) The South Lake Tahoe court
explained that "Bakity and De La Rosa demonstrate the principle that while a public
entity has no obligation to provide stop signs, if it does so in such a way that the sign
itself creates or becomes a dangerous condition, liability may ensue." (South Lake
Tahoe, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at p. 977; see Chowdhury v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 38
24
Cal.App.4th 1187, 1195.) The court found those cases were inapplicable because the
plaintiffs "rest their claim of municipal liability on the complete absence of such a sign,
rather than its deceptive location." (South Lake Tahoe, supra, at p. 977; see Chowdhury,
supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1194-1196.)
On the section 830.4 issue, this case is analogous to Bakity and De La Rosa, and
materially different from South Lake Tahoe. According to plaintiffs' offer of proof, the
County's liability was not based on plaintiffs' claim that the County had failed to
"provide" a stop sign, or had improperly removed the stop sign. Instead, it was based on
the County's failure to warn about a stop sign that appeared to face north rather than east,
and thus had the potential to confuse eastbound Shank Road drivers into believing they
had the right-of-way, creating a substantial risk of harm to Highway 115 drivers.
b. Section 820.2
The County next contends it was immune from liability under the discretionary act
immunity statute. (§ 820.2.) The County maintains that Deputy Badena's decision to
leave the scene without taking any action to protect against an accident was a
discretionary judgment call that cannot be the basis for liability under section 820.2.
Section 820.2 states: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee
is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was
the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be
abused." Under this plain language, the discretionary immunity applies to liability of a
public employee, and not to a public entity. (Winig v. State of California (1995) 37
Cal.App.4th 1772, 1778-1779, fn. 4.) The discretionary immunity rule bars public entity
25
liability only if the claim is based on a vicarious liability theory. (Ibid.) A public entity
cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of an individual employee if the employee is
immune from those acts. (§ 815.2, subd. (b).) But this rule is inapplicable here because
the dangerous condition claim is a direct claim, not a vicarious liability claim. (§ 835;
Winig, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1778-1779, fn. 4; see 4 Cal. Law Revision Com.
Rep., supra, at p. 854 [section 835 "is not subject to the discretionary immunity that
public entities derive from Section 815.2, for this chapter itself declares the limits of a
public entity's discretion in dealing with dangerous conditions of its property"].)
c. Section 845
The County additionally contends it is immune from plaintiffs' dangerous
condition claim based on section 845, which provides: "Neither a public entity nor a
public employee is liable for failure to . . . provide police protection service or . . . for
failure to provide sufficient police protection service." (§ 845.)
This argument is forfeited because it was not raised in the proceedings below.
(See Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 809, 830;
Saville v. Sierra College (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 857, 872-873.) The rule prohibiting a
party from raising arguments on appeal for the first time applies with particular force to
motions for a nonsuit. Generally, after an opening statement, a nonsuit may be granted
only on the grounds asserted by the opposing party. (See Lawless v. Calaway (1944) 24
Cal.2d 81, 94; Timmsen v. Forest E. Olson, Inc. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 860, 868.)
Moreover, this newly asserted contention does not establish grounds for a nonsuit.
The basis for plaintiffs' claim is not the failure to provide a "police protection service."
26
(§ 845; see Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 799,
815.) It is that the condition of Shank Road was dangerous (given the misdirected sign)
which placed plaintiffs (or their predecessors) at substantial risk of injury. The
Legislature has specifically imposed a duty on a public entity to "protect against" a
dangerous condition on its property if the elements of section 835 are satisfied. (§ 835.)
"Protect against" includes "providing safeguards against a dangerous condition, or
warning of a dangerous condition." (§ 830, subd. (b).) There is nothing in this statute or
section 845 indicating the Legislature intended to create an exception to this statutorily-
imposed exception to immunity principles where the "protect against" obligation involves
a law enforcement officer. If a plaintiff proves a dangerous condition of public property
and establishes each of the statutory elements, the fact that a law enforcement officer
would function to "protect against" the risk does not establish section 845 immunity as a
matter of law.
4. Conclusion
We determine each of County's grounds for a nonsuit on the section 835 claim is
without merit. Assuming the truth of plaintiffs' asserted facts, the record does not show
plaintiffs are barred from recovering on their dangerous condition claim as a matter of
law. In reaching this conclusion, we do not intend to suggest our view on the merits of
the section 835 claim. Whether plaintiffs can successfully prove their claim and/or
whether the County can successfully prove its affirmative defenses, will be matters to be
decided in the remanded proceedings.
27
II. Negligence
Plaintiffs next contend the court erred in granting nonsuit on their section 815.2
negligence claim against the County.5 This claim is based on vicarious liability
principles, i.e., plaintiffs' assertion that the County is liable for Deputy Badena's alleged
negligence in failing to protect against the risk of harm.
The County maintains it is not vicariously liable under section 815.2 because
Deputy Badena owed no duty to plaintiffs and therefore his alleged failure to protect or
warn would not give "rise to a cause of action" under section 815.2. We agree with this
contention. We thus do not reach the County's alternate contention that even if Deputy
Badena owed plaintiffs a duty, the discretionary immunity defense bars the vicarious
liability claim.
" '[L]aw enforcement officers, like other members of the public, generally do not
have a legal duty to come to the aid of [another] person . . . .' " (Zelig v. County of Los
Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1129; see Camp v. State of California (2010) 184
Cal.App.4th 967, 975 (Camp); Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 232,
235-236.) An exception applies where there is a " 'special relationship' " between plaintiff
and defendant, under which liability may be imposed "if an officer voluntarily assumes a
5 Section 815.2 states: "(a) A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee or his personal representative. [¶] (b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of an employee of the public entity where the employee is immune from liability."
28
duty to provide a particular level of protection, and then fails to do so . . . or if an officer
undertakes affirmative acts that increase the risk of harm to the plaintiff." (Zelig, supra,
27 Cal.4th at p. 1129.) In these circumstances, liability is imposed based on the officer's
misfeasance, rather than his or her nonfeasance. (See Lugtu v. California Highway
Patrol (2001) 26 Cal.4th 703, 716-717; Camp, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 976-977.)
In this case, plaintiffs concede there are no facts showing a special relationship
between Deputy Badena and plaintiffs (and/or their predecessors). They nonetheless urge
this court to recognize a new duty of care owed by a law enforcement officer who fails to
warn of a dangerous traffic condition. In support, they engage in a lengthy analysis of the
factors described in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 119 (Rowland).) We
find this analysis to be unhelpful.
Absent a statutory basis, a law enforcement officer's failure to act does not support
a finding that he or she is individually liable to a citizen allegedly injured by the
nonfeasance. This is true even if the officer was at the scene and his or her actions could
have prevented substantial injury. (Camp, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 977-979.) The
decision whether a defendant owes a duty to an individual plaintiff does not depend on
the particular facts of the case. Rather, a court must focus on whether the category of
negligent conduct warrants imposing a duty to a class of persons. (Cabral v. Ralphs
Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 772.) The courts have long adhered to the rule that a
police officer does not owe a duty to a private citizen absent a statutory duty, special
relationship, or affirmative misconduct. The Rowland factors cannot be used as a vehicle
to undermine this well-settled rule in this case.
29
Plaintiffs' reliance on Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol
(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 866 is misplaced. In Catsouras, plaintiffs alleged that two CHP
officers emailed "horrific" photographs of an 18-year-old who was decapitated in a fatal
automobile accident. (Id. at p. 863.) According to the Court of Appeal, the photograph
of this young woman's decapitated remains were "strewn about the Internet and spit back
at the family members, accompanied by hateful messages." (Ibid.) Applying the
Rowland factors, the court found the CHP and its officers "owed plaintiffs a duty of care
not to place decedent's death images on the Internet for the purposes of vulgar spectacle."
(Catsouras, supra, at p. 864.) The court reasoned: "The CHP here undertook to perform
an investigation and to collect evidence. It was not in furtherance of the investigation,
the preservation of evidence, or any other law enforcement purpose, to deliberately make
a mutilated corpse the subject of lurid gossip. . . . Under the extraordinary facts of this
case, [the CHP officers] owed plaintiffs a duty not to exploit CHP-acquired evidence in
such a manner to place them at foreseeable risk of grave emotional distress." (Id. at p.
864.)
This analysis is inapplicable here where there was no evidence that Deputy
Badena engaged in affirmative misconduct. The Catsouras plaintiffs did not seek to hold
the CHP officers liable for their failure to act. Rather, their negligence claim was based
on allegations they engaged in affirmative actions of disseminating "gruesome death
images" to the officers' friends and relatives who had "no involvement in official CHP
activities." (Catsouras, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 884.) The facts here are not
analogous.
30
Our conclusion is not undermined by our earlier determination that plaintiffs
stated a viable cause of action under section 835. Although the dangerous condition
cause of action is based, in part, on plaintiffs' claim that the County had sufficient notice
and time to have taken protective measures through Deputy Badena's presence at the
scene, this does not necessarily mean that Deputy Badena owed a negligence duty to the
individual plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs' negligence claim is based on a vicarious
liability theory, and under settled tort principles Deputy Badena owed no negligence duty
to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' section 835 cause of action is a direct action against the County
and seeks to impose liability based on proof of section 835's statutory elements. The fact
that these two different exceptions to governmental immunity lead to different results
does not mean the results are incorrect. Each exception to governmental immunity must
be analyzed under its own terms.
31
DISPOSITION
The court is ordered to vacate its judgment granting a nonsuit on plaintiffs'
dangerous condition (§ 835) and negligence claims against the County. The court is
ordered to enter a new order granting a nonsuit on plaintiffs' negligence claim against the
County, and denying the motion for nonsuit on the dangerous condition cause of action.
The parties to bear their own costs on appeal.
HALLER, J. WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
32
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit on the dangerous condition claim because a public entity may be liable for a dangerous condition on its property that creates a foreseeable risk of injury to users of adjacent property, even if the entity does not own the specific defect. However, the court affirmed the judgment on the negligence claim.
Issues
Whether the County could be held liable for a dangerous condition under Government Code section 835 when the defective stop sign was owned by the State.
Whether the County owed a duty to warn drivers on a state-owned highway of a dangerous condition originating from a misdirected sign on a county-owned road.
Whether the trial court properly granted a nonsuit on the plaintiffs' negligence cause of action.
Disposition. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The court erred in granting the County's nonsuit motion on the dangerous condition cause of action (§ 835), but the court properly entered judgment in the County's favor on the negligence cause of action.”
“A public entity may be held responsible for failing to protect individuals from foreseeable dangers posed to those who use its property, even if the danger stems from a condition on adjacent property.”
“The misdirected stop sign created a dangerous condition on County-owned Shank Road and this dangerous condition created a substantial risk of injury to those driving on Highway 115 near Shank Road.”