California Supreme Court Watch

#21-185 Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, S267453. (B293670; 60 Cal.App.5th 423; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC633651.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Can a public entity be held liable under Government Code section 830.8 for failure to warn of an allegedly dangerous design of public property if the design itself is entitled to immunity under Government Code?

Petition for review granted: 4/21/2021

The court ordered the issue to be briefed and argued in this case limited to the following: Can a public entity be held liable under Government Code section 830.8 for failure to warn of an allegedly dangerous design of public property that is subject to Government Code section 830.6 design immunity?

Issues ordered limited and petition for review granted: 4/28/2021

Opinion filed; judgment affirmed in full: 4/27/2023

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639.)

“Relying on our holding in Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d 318 (Cameron), we conclude that design immunity does not categorically preclude failure to warn claims that involve a discretionarily approved element of a roadway. As we expressly held in Cameron, ‘[W]here the state is immune from liability for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its property because the dangerous condition was created as a result of a plan or design which conferred immunity under [Government Code] section 830.6, the state may nevertheless be liable for failure to warn of this dangerous condition.’ (Cameron, at p. 329.) The effect of Cameron is that while section 830.6 shields public entities from liability for injuries resulting from the design of the physical features of a roadway, they nonetheless retain a duty to warn of known dangers that the roadway presents to the public….

Contrary to the City’s assertions … we find nothing illogical in Cameron’s conclusion that section 830.6 was not intended to allow government entities to remain silent when they have notice that a reasonably approved design presents a danger to the public.

Moreover, the City has failed to identify any subsequent development in the law or other special justification that warrants departure from the doctrine of stare decisis….  Cameron has been controlling law for over 50 years and the Legislature has never chosen to abrogate the holding…. For all those reasons, we decline to overrule our prior precedent.”

Justice Groban authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.