Gonzales v. City of Atwater
6 Cal. App. 5th 929
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2001 the City of Atwater approved traffic-signal plans for the Bellevue/Linden intersection prepared by Fehr & Peers; plans used permissive phasing for north/south movement and protected left turns on Bellevue. The plans were stamped and approved by City engineer Lozano and the City Council.
- The signals were installed per the 2001 plans. After installation, two pedestrian/bicycle fatalities occurred at the intersection (2002 and 2008). In 2004 the City retained engineer Elias who prepared plans to convert the intersection to split phasing; the City paid for the design but never implemented the modification.
- In December 2010 a left‑turning motorist, Michelle Carrizales, struck and killed Delia Gonzales in the marked crosswalk. Plaintiffs sued Carrizales and the City for wrongful death alleging the signal phasing and related design/signage created a dangerous condition.
- At trial the jury found the City liable for a dangerous condition and awarded plaintiffs ~$3.2 million; it found Carrizales not negligent. The City moved for JNOV, arguing it was entitled to design immunity under Gov. Code § 830.6; the trial court denied the motion relying on the City’s 2004 (unbuilt) modification.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal considered whether the City established design immunity as a matter of law and concluded the City satisfied all § 830.6 elements, reversing and directing entry of judgment for the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City established discretionary approval under § 830.6 | Plaintiffs argued approval requires evidence of a deliberative decision process showing the approving official actually considered and chose permissive phasing | City argued approval is satisfied by plans prepared by engineers and approved by the city engineer and council; deliberative detail not required | City established discretionary approval as a matter of law (approval need not show the approver’s thought process) |
| Whether the 2001 design was reasonable (§ 830.6 third element) | Plaintiffs claimed the permissive phasing was unreasonable given intersection factors and lack of documented analysis | City relied on professional design, expert testimony, and plaintiffs’ concession at trial that 2001 plans were reasonable | Court held plaintiffs conceded reasonableness at trial; reasonableness element satisfied |
| Whether approval of 2004 unimplemented plans eliminated immunity | Plaintiffs argued City lost immunity by approving a safer 2004 design and failing to implement it | City argued immunity attached to the 2001 design and was not lost absent a physical change in condition | Court concluded immunity for the approved 2001 design remained; reversed judgment against City (trial court had relied on 2004 approval, but appellate decision rested on established immunity for 2001 plans) |
| Whether remand should address Carrizales’s exoneration or reallocation of fault | City asked to overturn jury’s exoneration of Carrizales if City remains liable | Plaintiffs argued issue not before court; Carrizales defended verdict | Court declined to address Carrizales’s liability because City did not file cross-complaint and thus lacked standing to appeal co-defendant’s exoneration |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. County of San Diego, 62 Cal.4th 340 (Cal. 2015) (interpretation of § 830.6: discretionary approval element does not require proof of the approver’s internal deliberations; reasonableness is judged by the court)
- Cornette v. Department of Transportation, 26 Cal.4th 63 (Cal. 2001) (three-element framework for design immunity: causation, discretionary approval, and substantial evidence of reasonableness)
- Grenier v. City of Irwindale, 57 Cal.App.4th 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (discretionary approval and substantial evidence standards for design immunity)
- Cameron v. State of California, 7 Cal.3d 318 (Cal. 1972) (early discussion of design immunity and when absence of a plan element precludes immunity)