Castro

Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks

Good Law
192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 762·239 Cal. App. 4th 1451
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 2015B258649California3,105 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

In an action for dangerous condition of public property, approval of an actual plan or design is required to establish the affirmative defense of government design immunity. (Gov. Code, § 830.6.) “[T]he public entity is immune from liability if placement of the object [here, a pedestrian signal beacon] was part of a plan or design for which the entity reasonably gave its discretionary approval. [Citations.]” (Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1099, 1111 [ 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 850 , 353 P.3d 773 ].) “Addons,” which are not part of the approved plan or design and which are installed after the public works project is approved, do not come under the umbrella of design immunity. That is the case here. In addition, there are material triable issues of fact that a crosswalk/street intersection was a dangerous condition of public property. (Gov. Code, § 835.) We reverse the grant of summary judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

On the afternoon of May 22, 2012, Griselda Castro, her two children, Diana and Yazmin, and two other children in her care, Alyson Brito and Emily Brito, were walking in the crosswalk at the intersection of Live Oak Street and Thousand Oaks…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.