In Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks, published August 31, 2015, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6, reversed summary judgment granted to the defendant city in a dangerous condition of public property case. An adult and children were crossing a wide street. The adult pressed the button for a pedestrian signal beacon before crossing. The group started crossing, and were hit by a van. The driver did not see the warning beacon or the people crossing. The evidence showed that safety improvement project plans for the intersection were approved by the city council. The beacon was not included in the plans. After the improvements were completed, the city engineer authorized purchasing and installing the beacon. The The city code gives the city engineer discretion to install and maintain traffic control devices when in his opinion they are necessary for public safety. The engineer was also authorized to install the beacon without city council approval because the cost was under the necessary minimum for approval. The trial court granted the city summary judgment, based both on Government Code section 830.6 and a ruling that the intersection was not a dangerous condition of public property.
The appellate court ruled that the city was not entitled to design immunity, because the beacon was not part of a plan or design approved in advance of construction by a legislative body or an official delegated the authority to approve it. Neither the city engineer's authority to install and maintain traffic devices nor the fact that the expenditure did not require city council approval amounted to an authorized approval of a design or plan for the beacon before construction. The appellate court also found a triable issue of fact on whether the intersection was dangerous. Under the circumstances, a jury could conclude that the beacon was a trap that lured pedestrians into a false sense of security when crossing.
Comments