Dammann

Dammann v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District

Good Law
150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 829·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1298·212 Cal. App. 4th 335
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 20, 2012No. A131453California7,745 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lambden, J.

Plaintiffs Grace Dammann and Sabrina SchroederDammann (collectively, Dammann), appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District). Dammann alleged in their suit that the District, as the owner of a public property on which a dangerous condition existed, was liable for personal injuries they incurred in a cross-over accident on the Golden Gate Bridge (Bridge). They argue the trial court erred in ruling that the District was immune from their suit based on the affirmative defense of design immunity, related to the District’s 1985 decision not to install moveable median barriers (MMB’s) on the Bridge.

Among other things, Dammann argues that the District lost this design immunity when it became aware by 1998 that certain technological advances in MMB’s made it appropriate to install an MMB on the Bridge, which *338 advances were “changed physical conditions” that would have ehminated the existing dangerous condition on the Bridge, i.e., the lack of a median barrier. Dammann also argues that a 1979 amendment to Government Code section 830.6 (section 830.6) was such that a triable…

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.