21 Cal. App. 5th 947
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- On April 29, 2013, Rodriguez was injured (and another passenger killed) when a pickup left SR 152, struck a guardrail end and went into an irrigation canal; Rodriguez sued Caltrans alleging a dangerous condition due to the absence of shoulder rumble strips.
- Caltrans produced detailed design plans from 1992, 2002, and 2011 showing an 8-foot paved shoulder without rumble strips, and declarations that project engineers with discretionary authority approved those plans and construction conformed to them.
- The 1992 project engineer (Rajendra) stated he did not consider shoulder rumble strips because they were not common practice nor covered by standards in 1992; later project engineers similarly said they received no directive to install them.
- Caltrans’s expert opined the omission of rumble strips was reasonable given no identified need or history of run-off collisions at the site; Rodriguez’s expert opined absence of rumble strips was dangerous and offered evidence of other collisions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Caltrans on the basis of design immunity (Gov. Code § 830.6), finding causation and reasonableness conceded or supported and that discretionary approval was established as a matter of law.
- Rodriguez appealed, arguing that discretionary approval is lacking where the official who approved the plans admits he never considered the specific safety feature (rumble strips).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary approval (§ 830.6) exists when the approving engineer admits he did not consider a specific design feature (rumble strips) | Rodriguez: Approval is not an exercise of discretionary authority if the approver never considered the particular feature; absence of consideration means no decision was made | Caltrans: Discretionary approval is satisfied by evidence an employee with authority approved the plans that were built; failure to consider a feature goes to reasonableness, not approval | The court held discretionary approval satisfied where an authorized engineer approved plans that included the injury-producing feature; lack of consideration is relevant to reasonableness, not to approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. County of San Diego, 62 Cal.4th 340 (2015) (statutory interpretation: discretionary approval element satisfied by approval or conformity to standards; substantive reasonableness is decided separately)
- Cornette v. Department of Transportation, 26 Cal.4th 63 (2001) (three-element structure of design immunity: causation, discretionary approval, substantial evidence of reasonableness)
- Grenier v. City of Irwindale, 57 Cal.App.4th 931 (1997) (design immunity applies where injury-producing feature was part of approved plan)
- Gonzales v. City of Atwater, 6 Cal.App.5th 929 (2016) (discretionary approval need not show a deliberate weighing process; approval by authorized employee suffices)
- Cameron v. State of California, 7 Cal.3d 318 (1972) (no design immunity where plans lacked the alleged injury-producing feature; no proved decision)
- Laabs v. City of Victorville, 163 Cal.App.4th 1242 (2008) (engineer’s review and approval of plans establishes discretionary approval)