Design Immunity May Apply If a Public Entity Shows that the Presence or Absence of Warning Signs Was Part of the Approved Design
Under Government Code section 830.6, commonly known as “design immunity,” public entities may be immune from tort liability for dangerous conditions “caused by the plan or design” of public property. This immunity shields public entities from tort liability arising from the construction of public infrastructure. A public entity must show three elements for design immunity to attach: (1) plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by a feature of the approved design; (2) the plan or design was approved by the “legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval” before construction; and (3) “there is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which (a) a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan or design or the standards therefore or (b) a reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have approved the plan or design or the standards therefore.” (Gov. Code § 830.6.)
Recently, in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Court of Appeal considered “whether design immunity might apply if the public entity is able to show that the presence or absence of warning signs was part of the approved design.” The case arose when a bicyclist riding in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (“City”) died after colliding with a tractor trailer that was making a right turn from the road on which he was cycling. There was no dispute that the City provided some warning of the relevant dangerous condition, including: a sign warning of a curve with a reduced speed limit advisory of 35 miles per hour, corresponding pavement markings, six chevron signs, a flashing beacon around the curve, a sign noting the steep grade of the hill, and a sign pavement markings advising of the traffic signal ahead.
The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiff’s position that “failure to warn claims .. are not subject to design immunity.” The court held the City immune from liability because the City established the elements of design immunity as a matter of law. The City presented evidence that the warning signs were part of the roadway design and construction plans the City approved years earlier. The Court of Appeal observed that the adequacy of warnings posted on a roadway as part of a public design—assuming a warning has been posted at all— are similar to the kind of infrastructure planning issues that design immunity has traditionally protected. Accordingly, when a public entity has provided some warning of an alleged dangerous condition, and that warning was included as part of a reasonable plan or design that would otherwise be protected by design immunity under Government Code section 830.6, design immunity may apply.
The plans and designs that address potentially dangerous conditions of public property therefore should include warning notices. Please contact counsel at RWG if you have any questions about how design immunity might apply to public projects in your community. This alert was prepared by Yulliana Madrigal.
