In Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, ordered published November 28, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6 affirmed summary judgment in the state's favor based on design immunity. On a state highway, a vehicle struck a deer. The impact sent the deer into the opposing lane, where it struck another vehicle. That vehicle veered across the centerline and collided with the vehicle driven by the plaintiffs' decedent. At the roadway portion where the accident occurred, a four-foot-wide painted median with rumble strips separates traffic. Six deer warning signs appear along the 15-mile segment of the roadway where the accident occurred. The closest one facing westbound traffic is approximately a mile from the accident site; the closest one facing westbound traffic two miles away, a position it was moved to after a request from the Department of Fish and Game. The plaintiffs sued the state for maintaining a dangerous condition of public property, alleging the roadway's design, lack of deer crossing signs, and high speed limit. The trial court found design immunity under Government Code section 830.6 was a complete defense to the plaintiffs' claims.
The appellate court agreed. The state established the elements of design immunity. The plaintiffs' allegations allege the required causal connection, by alleging that the state designed the roadway without certain safety features they contend would have made it safer. The state satisfied the burden of establishing discretionary approval of the plan by submitting detailed plans for the area of the roadway where the accident occurred, and by a traffic engineer attesting to the applicable design standards and how the state addressed the dangers posed by deer entering traffic and vehicles crossing the median. The entity need not submit evidence that it considered a particular design feature but decided not to include it. Limiting design immunity to those features expressly considered would be tantamount to requiring public entities to address all conceivable design features during the approval process. They need not do so. The state produced substantial evidence that the design was reasonable. The plaintiffs did not dispute the plans were properly approved and complied with prevailing design standards. Nor did they dispute the state placed deer warning signs east and west of the accident site. These facts alone are sufficient to show the approved design plans were reasonable. The state also submitted a traffic engineer's declaration that the accident rate for the area was below the statewide average for similar locations; that a state system for determining whether median barriers would improve safety did not identify the system, due to insufficient centerline collisions; that no additional deer warning signs were warranted; that the speed limit accorded with the vehicle code; and that the state reasonably approved all relevant plans before construction and that the design was reasonable. The plaintiff's expert's disagreement did not eliminate substantial evidence of reasonableness. The appellate court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the trial court failed to address their separate and independent allegation that the state created a dangerous condition by failing to warn adequately of deer crossings, and that under Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 design immunity did not bar this claim. Tansavatdi declined to decide the issue presented here: whether design immunity affects a failure to warn claim when a public entity produces evidence that it considered whether to provide a warning. The state produced evidence that its design plans specified the quantity and placement of deer crossing signs. The plaintiffs disputed only that the state warned motorists of this danger adequately. The trial court resolved that issue in the state's favor. Substantial evidence supports that finding.
Comments