Martinez v. County of Ventura
225 Cal. App. 4th 364
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Humberto Martinez was paralyzed when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm adjacent to a raised "top-hat" steel drain on the shoulder of Box Canyon Road, owned by Ventura County.
- Plaintiffs (Martinez and his wife) sued under Government Code § 835, alleging the drain/berm was a dangerous condition of public property that caused the injury.
- The County conceded ownership but asserted, among other defenses, design immunity under Gov. Code § 830.6.
- Evidence at trial showed the top-hat drains were installed in 1990 by county road maintenance staff, without formal engineering plans or a licensed engineer; the design "evolved" in the field.
- A jury found a dangerous condition caused the injury but returned a verdict for the County based on design immunity; the County presented testimony from the Road Maintenance Engineer (Loren Blair) that he "probably" approved the installation.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the design-immunity defense, focusing on whether discretionary approval of the design existed prior to construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a pre-construction design or plan for the top-hat drains sufficient to support design immunity | Martinez: no evidence of any written or formal design existed before installation | County: formal plans not required; design need only be understandable to approver (citing Thomson) | Held: No. County introduced no design at all; Thomson requires at least some identifiable plan or drawing. |
| Whether discretionary approval occurred before construction by a person vested with authority under law | Martinez: no evidence the Ventura County Road Commissioner or anyone lawfully authorized delegated approval to Blair or others | County: Blair (Maintenance Engineer) approved the installation; repeated use of the design implies approval | Held: No. Discretionary authority is fixed by law (Streets & Highways Code) and the County failed to show the Commissioner delegated approval to Blair or anyone else; implied approval rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornette v. Department of Transportation, 26 Cal.4th 63 (establishes elements and purpose of design immunity)
- Thomson v. City of Glendale, 61 Cal.App.3d 378 (design need not be formal but must be sufficiently explicit to be understandable to approver)
- Johnston v. Yolo County, 274 Cal.App.2d 46 (discretionary authority for county roads is fixed by statute; locus of authority matters for design immunity)
- Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane, 67 Cal.App.3d 565 (failure to prove any element of design immunity is fatal)
- Grenier v. City of Irwindale, 57 Cal.App.4th 931 (detailed approved plans are persuasive evidence of prior discretionary approval)