41 Cal.App.5th 159
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Cynthia Dobbs (plaintiff) tripped and fell after walking into an unpainted concrete bollard outside the Los Angeles Convention Center; the bollard measured about 17.5 inches wide and 17.5 inches tall.
- The bollards (over 50 near the south hall) were installed as vehicle-impact protection; the Convention Center sees roughly two million visitors yearly.
- Dobbs sued the City of Los Angeles for a dangerous condition causing her fall; the superior court granted the City summary judgment based on design immunity.
- The City invoked Government Code section 830.6 (design immunity); the City Engineer’s stamped approval of the plans and agency practice evidence were central.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the City met the three design-immunity elements, addressed admissibility objections to declarations and exhibits, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City satisfied the first element of design immunity (discretionary authority exercised) | Implicitly disputed but Dobbs stipulated at oral argument the first element was satisfied | City established discretionary authority existed | Court passed over first element because Dobbs stipulated it was satisfied |
| Whether discretionary approval occurred before construction (second element) | Challenges sufficiency of a declaration and contends approver testimony required | City relied on City Engineer stamp on plans and a project manager’s declaration about agency custom/practice | Approval before construction was adequately shown; discretionary approval satisfied |
| Whether there is substantial evidence the approval was reasonable (third element) | The bollard was allegedly a dangerous, tripping hazard; attacks on evidence about bollard rows and exhibits | City argued bollard was large, obvious, designed for vehicle protection, and conspicuous to pedestrians | Court held substantial evidence supported reasonableness; design immunity applies and shields the City |
| Admissibility of evidentiary declarations and exhibits | Objected to declarant’s lack of personal involvement and to two exhibits; emphasized rows/placement discrepancies | City contended declaration reflected relevant agency practice and exhibits were cumulative/inessential | Court overruled objections: the declaration was sufficient; exhibits were inessential to the ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. County of San Diego, 62 Cal.4th 340 (2015) (articulates three elements of design immunity)
- Gonzales v. City of Atwater, 6 Cal.App.5th 929 (2016) (agency custom/practice testimony can establish discretionary approval even if witness not personally involved)
- Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation, 21 Cal.App.5th 947 (2018) (reasonableness inquiry for design immunity is a question of law)
- Grenier v. City of Irwindale, 57 Cal.App.4th 931 (1997) (substantial evidence of reasonableness suffices even if contradicted)
- Davis v. City of Pasadena, 42 Cal.App.4th 701 (1996) (conspicuity of an object can defeat a dangerous condition claim)