In Curtis v. County of Los Angeles, published July 30, 2013, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 4, affirmed summary judgment for the county in a roadway design case. The driver of the vehicle in front of the plaintiffs' car crossed the double yellow line separating eastbound and westbound traffic. He hit a westbound vehicle, which spun into the eastbound lane and hit the plaintiffs' vehicle. The plaintiffs alleged that the lack of median space or barrier, design of the road width and superelevation, design of the shoulders, striping, alignment, road design, speed, and failure to maintain the roadway amounted to a dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiffs submitted expert testimony that the lanes and shoulder widths did not meet AASHTO and state recommendations. They further submitted expert evidence of high traffic volume and speed, and four cross-centerline collisions in a five-year period before the accident.
The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable fact that any factor other than the absence of a center median space or barrier caused the accident. The accident was caused by the driver's purposeful decision to cross the double yellow line into incoming traffic. The driver did not identify any condition of the road that caused him to lose control of his vehicle. Further, the county proved its entitlement to design immunity under Government Code section 830.6 as to the lack of median barrier or space, because an official with discretionary authority approved plans twice that did not include a space or barrier. The plaintiffs did not show any material change in conditions -- traffic flow, average speed, or accident rate -- between approval of the plans and the accident.
Comments