On April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury’s defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County’s evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law.
Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the “County”) after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain.
Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for “injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures.” The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property.
The County raised the Design Immunity affirmative defense pursuant to California Government Code section 830.6. This defense requires the public entity to plead and prove: (1) the entity’s discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction, (2) a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident, and (3) substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design.
In support of its defense, the County offered evidence that the top-hat drain system had been in common use since 1990, and that the County’s Road Maintenance Engineer “probably approved” the design of the drain. There was also evidence that the County’s Department of Transportation was unaware of any scientific or engineering analysis performed for the top-hat drain system, that there were no formal plans for the top-hat drain system, and that the system “evolved based on experience.” Based on this evidence, the jury returned its verdict for the County based on Design Immunity.
The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the County’s evidence in support of the “discretionary approval” element of Design Immunity was insufficient as a matter of law. This element requires a showing that the design was approved in advance of the construction by a body of the public entity exercising discretionary authority to approve the design, or that the design was prepared in conformity with the standard previously approved by the public entity. (Cal. Gov’t Code ยง 830.6.)
In reversing the jury’s verdict in favor of the County, the Court noted that the purpose of the Design Immunity defense is to “prevent the discretionary decisions of government officers vested with authority to make those decisions from being second-guessed in litigation.” For purposes of the top-hat drain system, that discretionary power was vested in the Ventura County Road Commissioner. The Court held that the County had “no evidence that the discretionary authority to approve the top-hat drain design,” was ever delegated to any other employee of the County. Thus, no discretionary decision was ever made. In so finding, the Court reversed the judgment in favor of the County, bound the trial court by the jury’s finding of a dangerous condition on public property, and remanded the matter for retrial for matters not previously reached by the jury.
The import of this case highlights the burden a public entity carries in asserting the Design Immunity affirmative defense. Public entities should document their delegation of power to make discretionary design approvals, and should document discretionary decisions relating to the approval of design plans for conditions that could potentially be considered dangerous conditions on the public entity’s property. With such evidence, a public entity defendant is likely to prevail on a Design Immunity affirmative defense. Martinez, however, implicates the risk of a public entity’s inability to raise the defense without evidence of those discretionary approvals.
This document is intended to provide you with information about public entity and premises liability related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.