 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ledesma v. State2/13/2002
The State of California appeals from a judgment against it in a wrongful death action prosecuted on a theory of dangerous condition of public property. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1995, the City of Victorville converted Mojave Drive, a dirt road connecting Interstate 15 with U.S. Highway 395, into a paved four- lane road. To dispose of surplus excavated material, the city's contractor erected an earthen berm more than six feet higher than the roadway for 500 feet east of Highway 395 and south of Mojave Drive. As a result, drivers traveling westbound on Mojave Drive could not see the approach of vehicles traveling northbound on Highway 395.
In December of 1995, Valerie Duran and Rosalinda Cernas were driving westbound on Mojave Drive. They failed to stop at the stop sign at its intersection with Highway 395 and collided with northbound traffic on the highway. Both died from their injuries. Their surviving children then sued the State of California and the city for damages for wrongful death, claiming that a dangerous condition of public property had caused the decedents' fatal accident.
Asserting the statutory design immunity as an affirmative defense (Gov. Code, § 830.6 ), the state asked that the trial be bifurcated and that the alleged defense be tried before the remaining issues (Code Civ. Proc., § 597). The trial court granted that request and tried the design-immunity defense without a jury. The trial judge found that the state was not entitled to design immunity.
Following a jury trial on the remaining issues, a judgment was entered against the state in the sum in excess of $6 million.
Contentions
The state appeals, contending only that the trial court erred in rejecting its design-immunity defense. It argues that we review the trial court's decision de novo and that we should find that the state has proven every element of the defense. In response, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court's decision is reviewed largely for substantial evidence and that substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual determinations against the state. We conclude that, regardless of which standard of review is applied, the judgment must be affirmed. analysis
"A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the dangerous 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 preventive measures." (Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 66 ["Cornette"], citing Gov. Code, § 835.) "However, under [Government Code] section 830.6, the public entity may escape such liability by raising the affirmative defense of `design immunity.'" (Cornette at p. 69.) "A public entity claiming design immunity must establish three elements: (1) a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; (2) discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and (3) substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design." (Cornette at p. 66.)
A. TRIAL COURT DECISIONS REGARDING THE THIRD ELEMENT OF DESIGN IMMUNITY ARE REVIEWED INDEPENDENTLY.
"The third element of design immunity, the existence of substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the adoption of the plan or design, must be tried by the court, not the jury. Section 830.6 makes it quite clear that `the trial or appellate court' is to determine whether `there is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which (a) a reasonable public
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|