Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that liability under Government Code section 835 for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property requires proof that a public entity's employee negligently or wrongfully created the condition, or that the entity had actual or constructive notice of it for sufficient time to act. The court affirmed judgment for San Joaquin County because the jury found the intersection dangerous but found neither negligent creation nor adequate notice.

Holdings

1. Under Government Code section 835, a plaintiff must establish either that a negligent or wrongful act or omission of a public-entity employee acting within the scope of employment created the dangerous condition or that the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition for a sufficient time to have taken protective measures.
2. A public entity's creation, including deliberate creation, of a dangerous condition does not automatically establish liability under section 835, subdivision (a); the plaintiff must still establish that the creation resulted from negligent or wrongful conduct, although creation of the condition may itself constitute evidence supporting a finding of negligence.
3. Negligence under section 835, subdivision (a), is established under ordinary tort principles concerning the reasonableness of the public entity's conduct in light of the foreseeable risk of harm.
4. Government Code section 835.4 creates an affirmative defense available to a public entity after the plaintiff otherwise establishes liability under section 835; the public entity bears the burden of establishing that its conduct or inaction was reasonable in light of practicability, cost, time, opportunity, and the probability and gravity of harm.
5. A civil litigant who requested the challenged jury instructions and failed to request additional or qualifying instructions forfeits the right to argue on appeal that the instructions were incomplete or should have been different.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Government Code section 835 requires a plaintiff claiming injury from a dangerous condition of public property to prove either that a negligent or wrongful act or omission of a public-entity employee created the condition or that the public entity had sufficient actual or constructive notice of it.
2. Whether merely creating or deliberately creating a dangerous condition establishes public-entity liability under section 835, subdivision (a), without a separate finding of negligence or wrongful conduct.
3. Whether Government Code section 835.4 provides an affirmative defense after the plaintiff establishes liability under section 835.

Disposition

affirmed