Salas v. Department of Transportation
129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Accident at the SR 12/Bruella Road intersection in Victor, at a marked crosswalk, with Paula Salas struck by a eastbound vehicle as she crossed with Alberto.
- Posted speed limit is 45 mph; intersection features include crosswalk markings and signs; visibility was claimed to be adequate for both vehicles and pedestrians.
- Plaintiffs—Paula Salas’s estate administrator Jose Salas, Alberto, and two sons—sued Caltrans for wrongful death and related claims under Government Code §835 (dangerous condition), plus loss of consortium and survivor’s action.
- Caltrans moved for summary judgment or adjudication arguing no dangerous condition existed at the accident location; produced evidence about physical characteristics, signage, and lack of prior pedestrian collisions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in Caltrans’s favor; the appellate court affirmed, holding Caltrans carried its prima facie burden and the plaintiffs forfeited challenges to evidentiary rulings; the remaining evidence did not raise a triable issue of a dangerous condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the intersection was a dangerous condition under §835. | Salas argued the intersection’s design and signage created a substantial risk. | Caltrans contended the physical attributes showed no dangerous condition and no substantial risk. | No dangerous condition; Caltrans met prima facie showing and no triable issue remained. |
| Whether the trial court properly excluded prior accident evidence and the Douglas declaration. | Plaintiffs claimed prior accidents and Douglas’s opinions supported danger. | Court properly excluded evidence lacking substantial similarity or proper foundation. | Exclusion upheld; plaintiffs forfeited challenge by not articulating specific errors with argument or authorities. |
| Whether Lane v. City of Sacramento governs the analysis of dangerous conditions. | Lane supports considering factors beyond prior accidents to show dangerousness. | Lane is distinguishable and does not compel a finding of dangerous condition here. | Lane discussed relevant but not dispositive factors; here no triable issue of dangerous condition. |
| Whether the evidence, if admitted, would create a triable issue of material fact. | Douglas’s declaration and 23 other accident reports could show danger. | The evidence was inadmissible or insufficiently similar to raise triable facts. | With exclusions, no triable issue; Tong deposition insufficient to raise material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. City of Sacramento, 183 Cal.App.4th 1337 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (absence of prior claims not dispositive on dangerous condition)
- Cerna v. City of Oakland, 161 Cal.App.4th 1340 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (examines multiple factors to determine dangerous condition; emphasis on physical defect)
- Sun v. City of Oakland, 166 Cal.App.4th 1177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (crosswalk modifications not automatically create dangerous condition)
- Fackrell v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.2d 196 (Cal. 1945) (balancing of defects versus substantial risk; no hard rule)
- Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist., 36 Cal.3d 799 (Cal. 1984) (dangerous condition generally a question of fact unless clear legal conclusion)
- Powers v. City of Glendale", 71 Cal.App.3d 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (court may determine as a matter of law that a defect is not dangerous)