Vehicle Code section 21950.5 requires that before a public entity removes crosswalk markings, it must give the public the notice and opportunity to be heard prescribed in the statute. Some plaintiffs have argued that an entity's removal of markings without following this statutory procedure supports a cause of action under Government Code sections 830 and 835 for a dangerous condition of public property if an accident occurs on the unmarked crosswalk. The new case of Sun v. City of Oakland rejects that theory.
In Sun, the defendant city had built a "bulb out" (an extension of the curb at an intersection to reduce the amount of street the pedestrian must cross) at an intersection where the crosswalk was removed. The plaintiffs' decedent was crossing the intersection. One car approaching the intersection stopped to allow her to cross. Another swerved around that car, hit the pedestrian, and fled the scene.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not established any causal connection between the failure to follow the statute in removing the markings and the accident; and therefore had failed to establish that the removal created a dangerous condition to users with due care. Further, the immunity in Government Code section 830.8 for failure to provide street markings applied. Because the absence of markings was obvious to any sighted user, the removal of the markings did not create a hidden "trap" that might defeat the statutory immunity. Further, that another driver travelling in the same direction as the driver who hit the decedent stopped indicated that the removal did not cause the accident.
The court noted that the parties did not raise the issue of whether section 21950.5 created a "mandatory duty" whose violation might create liability under Government Code 815.6