Kamal v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8
B263531
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 26, 2016Background
- On April 17, 2011, Karim Kamal (plaintiff) was seriously injured when another motorcyclist (Morales) crossed double-yellow lines on Big Tujunga Canyon Road and collided with him. The CHP found Morales caused the collision by violating the basic speed law.
- Big Tujunga Canyon Road is a two-lane mountain road built in the 1940s; the County produced historical design plans and engineer declarations showing the road was designed under the practices of the time and approved by County engineers.
- Kamal sued the County of Los Angeles and the County Department of Public Works under Gov. Code § 835 (dangerous condition), for negligence, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging lack of speed and curve-warning signs and unsafe road characteristics.
- The County moved for summary judgment asserting design immunity (Gov. Code § 830.6), sign-immunity (Gov. Code §§ 830.4, 830.8), and that Morales was the sole cause; the trial court ultimately granted summary judgment on design immunity and later awarded costs to the County.
- On appeal Kamal challenged (inter alia) the sufficiency of the County’s proof of plan approval (relying on Martinez v. County of Ventura), alleged subsequent changes to the road, denied discovery (deposition of a County supervisor), and contested the costs award and fairness of proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design immunity under Gov. Code § 830.6 | County failed to present proof that the road was constructed pursuant to an approved plan; Martinez requires affirmative evidence of approval | County produced authenticated historic plans and declarations from current and former County engineers explaining historical approval practices; substantial evidence supports that a reasonable public employee could have approved the design | Affirmed: County met its initial burden; Kamal offered no contradictory evidence, so design immunity bars the § 835 claim |
| Sign immunity under §§ 830.4, 830.8 (failure to post warnings) | Absence of advisory speed and curve-warning signs rendered the road dangerous and caused the collision | Road features (width, curvature, shoulders, topography) were readily apparent; no ‘‘trap’’ to motorists; basic speed law governs and sign immunity applies | Affirmed: sign-immunity bars liability for failure to post the types of signs alleged; no hidden condition that would create a trap |
| Reconsideration /clarification of the trial court’s prior interim order | Judge Jessner lacked authority to reconsider or clarify her May 2014 adjudication order; resulting summary judgment is void | Motion was a permissible request for clarification/correction under Goel and CCP § 1008; court may correct internal inconsistencies | Affirmed: reconsideration/clarification was proper under Goel and § 1008; the court corrected an unclear interim order |
| Discovery — deposition of County Supervisor and post-adjudication document requests | Supervisor Antonovich should have been deposed; document requests denied unfairly | No compelling reason to depose an elected supervisor; deposition would be oppressive; further discovery would not have changed the summary judgment result | Affirmed: protective order precluding the supervisor’s deposition proper; denial of late discovery did not produce miscarriage of justice |
| Costs award and fairness of hearing | Judgment void or procedurally defective; costs memo captioning faulted; award excessive and unfair; judicial bias alleged | Defendants were the same County entities represented by same counsel; trial court reasonably declined to apportion costs; no evidence of bias or denial of fair hearing | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding $18,476.16 in costs nor was there shown to be an unfair hearing or bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2005) (trial court may clarify or correct prior interim orders; §1008 does not bar court-initiated correction)
- Hampton v. County of San Diego, 62 Cal.4th 340 (Cal. 2015) (elements and scope of design immunity under Gov. Code § 830.6)
- Martinez v. County of Ventura, 225 Cal.App.4th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (insufficient evidence of official plan approval defeats design-immunity proof)
- Wyckoff v. State of California, 90 Cal.App.4th 45 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (when raising design immunity on summary judgment, defendant must present substantial evidence a reasonable public employee could have approved the design)
- Grenier v. City of Irwindale, 57 Cal.App.4th 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (statute grants immunity when there is substantial evidence of reasonableness even if contradicted)
- Weber v. John Crane, Inc., 143 Cal.App.4th 1433 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach, 142 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (natural topographical conditions are generally not a dangerous condition requiring signage)