Dangerous Conditions on Public Property: Essential Elements for Liability

When a plaintiff alleges harm due to a dangerous condition on public property, the legal framework for such a claim is defined by Government Code § 835. This statute sets forth the conditions under which a public entity may be held liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on its property. In this blog post, we explore the essential factual elements required to establish a claim under § 835, along with key case law and statutory references that illustrate how courts analyze these issues.

Essential Factual Elements

To succeed in a claim for a dangerous condition on public property, the plaintiff must prove each of the following elements:

Property Control:

The plaintiff must show that the defendant owned or controlled the property. Control is paramount—more so than mere ownership—as it indicates the entity’s capacity to maintain, protect, or warn users of any hazards. As emphasized in Goddard v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 350, 359 [196 Cal.Rptr.3d 625], a public entity may not be held liable for a dangerous condition on property it does not control.

Existence of a Dangerous Condition:

The property must have been in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury. This involves a condition that creates an unreasonable risk of harm. Courts require evidence that the condition was dangerous—not merely defective—and that it posed a substantial risk to the public. The concept of “dangerous” is interpreted through the lens of what would be reasonably foreseeable, as further explained in Hayes v. State of California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 469, 472 [113 Cal.Rptr. 599, 521 P.2d 855].

Foreseeable Risk:

It must be established that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the type of injury that occurred. In other words, the risk of harm from the condition should have been predictable by a reasonable person, linking the condition directly to the injuries sustained.

Creation or Notice of the Dangerous Condition:

For public entities, liability under § 835 requires the plaintiff to demonstrate either:

a) That the dangerous condition was created by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of their employment; or

b) That the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition for a sufficient time prior to the injury, thereby failing to take reasonable steps to protect against it.

This dual pathway is well illustrated in Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1099, 1104 [190 Cal.Rptr.3d 850, 353 P.3d 773], where the court underscored that a public entity may be liable if it either created the dangerous condition or had ample notice to remedy it. Further, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, 647 [307 Cal.Rptr.3d 346, 527 P.3d 873] confirms that liability can be imposed even if the dangerous condition was not directly created by the entity’s employees, so long as the entity had notice and failed to act.

Injury to the Plaintiff:

The plaintiff must have sustained harm as a result of the dangerous condition. This element links the hazardous condition to a specific injury, requiring evidence of causation.

Causation:

Finally, it must be shown that the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. This causation requirement ensures that the property defect was not merely incidental but played a critical role in the harm suffered.

Judicial Interpretations and Policy Considerations

Case law provides further clarity on these elements. For instance, in Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1457–1458 [192 Cal.Rptr.3d 376], the court noted that a dangerous condition on public property can expose users to increased risk from third-party actions if certain features of the property amplify those risks. Similarly, Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 836 [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 679, 843 P.2d 624] distinguished between dangerous conditions created by the public entity versus those for which the entity had notice, emphasizing the importance of both creation and notice in determining liability.

In Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1135 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 382, 176 P.2d 654], the court warned against a broad application of the res ipsa loquitur presumption in these cases, noting that the legislative history of § 835 requires a clear demonstration that an employee’s negligent or wrongful act led to the dangerous condition. Meanwhile, Curtis v. State of California (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 668, 693 [180 Cal.Rptr. 843] reinforces that a public entity may be held liable if either negligence or notice is established.

The pivotal role of control is further supported by Mamola v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 781, 788 [156 Cal.Rptr. 614], which clarifies that the entity’s capacity to protect or warn is what ultimately underpins liability—not mere ownership.

Lastly, recent cases such as Nunez v. City of Redondo Beach (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 749, 757 [297 Cal.Rptr.3d 461] remind us that if a property defect is deemed trivial or insignificant, it may not rise to the level of a “dangerous condition” as a matter of law. The evidence must be viewed favorably for the plaintiff, but if the risk is deemed minimal, liability might not attach.

Conclusion

In essence, a dangerous condition on public property claim under Government Code § 835 requires a careful, fact-specific analysis. Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the public entity controlled the property, that a dangerous condition existed and created a foreseeable risk, that the entity either created the condition or had sufficient notice to remedy it, and that these factors were a substantial cause of the injury. Through decisions in Cordova, Tansavatdi, Castro, Brown, Metcalf, Curtis, Mamola, and Nunez, California courts have delineated a rigorous framework for assessing these claims. For legal practitioners and policy-makers alike, understanding these elements is crucial to ensuring that public entities are held accountable for maintaining safe environments, thereby protecting the welfare of the public.

Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law Firm

At Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.

Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.