Hampton v. County of San Diego
62 Cal. 4th 340
| Cal. | 2015Background
- Hampton was injured in a November 2009 collision at Miller and Cole Grade Roads in San Diego County.
- Plaintiffs alleged the intersection design created inadequate visibility for left turns due to a high embankment with shrubs.
- County designs did not depict the embankment or sight distance needed, and the design plan did not specify required visibility.
- County moved for summary judgment asserting design immunity under § 830.6, supported by evidence of pre-construction plan approval and after-construction as-built approvals.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on all elements; Court of Appeal affirmed; issue before Supreme Court was discretionary approval under § 830.6.
- Court concluded discretionary approval does not require awareness that standards were deviated; reasonableness governs the immunity defense; changed-condition issues may be evaluated under the reasonableness element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does discretionary approval under § 830.6 require awareness of standard deviation? | Hampton argues approval requires knowing deviation from standards. | County argues awareness is not required; reasonableness governs immunity. | Discretionary approval does not require awareness of deviation. |
| Must public entities prove approving official had authority to disregard standards to obtain immunity? | Plaintiffs contend authority to deviate is needed. | County shows authority to approve plans; deviation authority not required. | Authority to approve plans suffices; deviation authority not required in prima facie showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornette v. Department of Transportation, 26 Cal.4th 63 (Cal. 2001) (definition of design immunity elements)
- Levin v. State of California, 146 Cal.App.3d 410 (Cal. App. 1983) (discretionary approval and design immunity discussion (overruled in part))
- Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, 114 Cal.App.4th 376 (Cal. App. 2003) (discretionary approval element and deviation from standards)
- Cameron v. State of California, 7 Cal.3d 318 (Cal. 1972) (emphasized policy of immunity and non-review of planning decisions)
- Johnson v. State of California, 69 Cal.2d 782 (Cal. 1968) (discretionary acts vs ministerial; policy basis for immunity)
- Weiss v. Fote, 167 N.E.2d 63 (N.Y. 1961) (design immunity and deference to duly authorized planning bodies)