Rodriguez
Rodriguez v. Dep't of Transp.
Opinion
lead Opinion
Hill, J.
*950 While a public entity may be liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of public property ( Gov. Code, §§ 830, 835 ), 1 the entity may avoid liability through the affirmative defense of design immunity (§ 830.6). ( Hampton v. County of San Diego (2015) 62 Cal.4th 340 , 342, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 , 362 P.3d 417 .) For design immunity to apply, the public entity " '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.' " ( Ibid. )
The present case involves the second element-discretionary approval. Plaintiff Erik Rodriguez contends that a public official's approval of a design does not constitute an exercise of discretionary authority under section 830.6 *951 if the official admits that he or she never actually considered whether to utilize the safety feature the plaintiff asserts would have prevented his or her injuries. We reject Rodriguez's contention and affirm the judgment.