On April 27, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Case No. S267453) clarifying that government entities can be held liable for failure to warn of dangerous traffic conditions, even if the entity is otherwise insulated from liability for the same dangerous condition under design immunity. However, the Court left the door open for the use of various defenses to defeat a failure to warn claim, making the decision a mixed bag for both plaintiffs and government entities.

Background

Government Code section 835 permits lawsuits against public entities for either creating a dangerous condition on their property, or failing to protect against such conditions when on notice of the danger and there is sufficient time to remedy the danger. Design immunity, however, precludes liability for injuries that were caused by a defect in the design of a public improvement where the public entity can show that the challenged design was discretionarily approved by authorized personnel, and substantial evidence supported the reasonableness of the plan. (See Gov. Code, § 830.6; Cornette v. Dept. of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 66.)

There is tension between the Government Code’s liability and immunity provisions. A public improvement that is otherwise covered by design immunity—meaning the public entity is not liable for injuries caused by the improvement—can still result in a claim that the entity failed to warn of the improvement. How does it make sense to hold the entity liable for the entity’s failure to warn of the same improvements? Shouldn’t the design immunity cover the failure to warn claims? Those are the questions the City of Rancho Palos Verdes posed to the Supreme Court in Tansavatdi.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ roadway design is entitled to design immunity.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes had designed one of its main boulevards with a designated bike lane. The bike lane continues uninterrupted along the road except for one square block that pitches sharply downhill next to a park. The City eliminated the bike lane on this block to accommodate street parking for individuals wanting to access the park.

Jonathan Tansavatdi was riding his bicycle in the bike lane when he came to portion of the boulevard running next to the park where the bike lane had been eliminated. He made his way downhill and rode into the right-turn lane intending to go forward across the intersection where the bike lane resumed. At the same time, an 80-foot tractor trailer began making a right turn from outside the right-turn lane. With no time to stop, Tansavatdi collided head on with the trailer and died from his injuries.

In the trial court, Tansavatdi’s mother alleged that the City had created a dangerous condition by eliminating the bike lane on the downhill portion of the road next to the park. Alternatively, she argued that the City was liable for her son’s injuries because it failed to place warning signs alerting cyclists of the dangerous condition of the road. On summary judgment, the City presented evidence showing that the challenged design of the portion of the roadway without a bike lane was discretionarily approved by authorized personnel, and substantial evidence supported the reasonableness of the plan. Thus, the City argued that it qualified for design immunity for any injuries that were caused by a defect in the design of the roadway eliminating the bike lane.

The trial court agreed with the City and held that, as a matter of law, the City was entitled to design immunity under Government Code section 830.6. It found that a discretionary decision was made that street parking had a higher priority than a bicycle lane where the incident occurred and that the plan and design were reasonable.

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is subject to liability under a failure to warn of a dangerous traffic condition created by its immunized design, but still has various defenses left to raise on remand.

On appeal, the question that remained open was whether the City’s immunity for its design of the roadway also meant that it was immunized from any claim that it failed to warn of a dangerous condition. The City argued: If the improvements at issue would be covered by design immunity, and the City is therefore not liable for injures caused by them, how could it make sense to hold the City liable for its failure to warn of the same improvements? The injuries would still be caused by the same dangerous condition: the improvements.

Reconciling the liability provision in Government Code section 835 and the immunity provision in Government Code section 830.6, the Supreme Court held that even if a public entity is entitled to design immunity, it can be held liable under a failure to warn theory if the plaintiff shows the following:

1. the public entity had actual or constructive notice that the approved design resulted in a dangerous condition;
2. the dangerous condition qualified as a concealed trap (i.e., would not have been reasonably apparent to, and would not have been anticipated by, a person exercising due care); and,
3. the absence of a warning was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.

Notably, the Court limited its holding to cases dealing with failure to warn claims involving traffic conditions. It also left the door open for government entities to show that the alleged concealed trap was not a dangerous condition under Government Code section 830(a), to raise the sign immunity defense in Government Code section 830.8, and to show that the road in question already contains adequate signage to protect against any possible danger.

The case has been remanded for further proceedings. It is yet to be seen whether the City will prevail against failure to warn liability under the new Tansavatdi framework.

Practical Guidance and Takeaway

Design immunity does not categorically preclude claims alleging failure to warn of a dangerous traffic condition created by the immunized design. When designing new public improvements affecting traffic conditions, government entities must consider whether any resulting dangerous conditions could be deemed concealed traps requiring the addition of warning signs.

Because design immunity can no longer be used to categorically bar all dangerous condition liability, prevailing on summary judgment will be more challenging than before. However, it is still possible to obtain summary judgment with a targeted approach to discovery and internal record investigation. Applying these new rules during the design review phase and in litigation will require project specific analyses by counsel.

Alexandra Atencio, Adam Hofmann, and David Casarrubias wrote on behalf of Amici in support of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes.