 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ledesma v. State2/13/2002
the trial court. On appeal all presumptions favor the exercise of that power, and the trial court's findings on such matters, whether express or implied, must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence."'" (Ibid., quoting People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597.)
As discussed above, the trial court found-on the basis of substantial evidence-that the berm was a cause of the accident and that the berm was not part of the approved design or plan for the project. The state appears to argue that the latter issue involves the application of law-e.g., the form a design or the approval of that design must take to qualify for design immunity. But we need not determine whether such a legal issue exists or how it should be answered, because here there was no evidence that any design of the berm had been approved in any fashion. The only evidence was that Roberts had approved an oral request to dispose of excess material within the right of way. But there is no evidence of the specifics of that request. In particular, there is no evidence that Roberts was asked to approve a berm of this height or in this location.
A party relying on design immunity must present evidence that the defective feature that caused the accident "was the result of or conformed to a design approved by the public entity . . . ." (Cameron v. State of California, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 326; Wyckoff v. State of California (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 45, 52.) For instance, the Supreme Court has held that, when uneven superelevation of a curve on a road is alleged to be the cause of an accident, there is no design immunity where the plans for the road do not mention the superelevation intended or recommended. (Cameron at p. 326.) In short, there can be no design immunity if the design is too general to show the feature that caused the accident.
In the absence of evidence that a specific design for the height or location of the berm ever existed, no legal issue arises as to whether a design must be in writing to be entitled to design immunity or whether the design must be approved in any particular fashion. Instead, the only issues are the historical factual issues, the trial court's resolution of which must be upheld because they are supported by substantial evidence.
In summary, the trial court's decision that the state had not proven its entitlement to the design-immunity defense is correct. That being the only ground on which the state challenged the judgment below, the judgment must be affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The plaintiffs shall recover their costs on appeal.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION.
We concur:
RICHLI J.
GAUT J.
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.
|
|