Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
14 Cal.5th 639
| Cal. | 2023Background
- Jonathan Tansavatdi died after colliding with an 80-foot tractor‑trailer while bicycling through a right‑turn lane on Hawthorne Boulevard where a continuous bike lane had been discontinued between Dupre and Vallon.
- Plaintiff (his mother) sued the City under Gov. Code § 835, alleging (a) the City created a dangerous condition by omitting the bike lane and (b) the City failed to warn of the concealed danger.
- The City moved for summary judgment asserting design immunity under Gov. Code § 830.6; it produced evidence the discontinuous bike lane and on‑street parking were part of an approved 2009 repaving design and that the design was reasonable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on design‑immunity grounds but did not address the separate failure‑to‑warn claim; the Court of Appeal affirmed on design immunity but remanded on the failure‑to‑warn theory, citing Cameron.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether design immunity categorically bars failure‑to‑warn claims that involve an authorized, approved design element and ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeal, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether design immunity (§ 830.6) bars failure‑to‑warn claims challenging an approved roadway design element | Tansavatdi: design immunity does not bar an independent failure‑to‑warn claim under § 835(b) (per Cameron/Flournoy) | City: once design immunity applies, entity cannot be liable for failing to warn of the same immunized design | Held: design immunity does not categorically preclude failure‑to‑warn claims involving an approved design element; plaintiffs may pursue § 835(b) claims subject to other limits |
| Whether Cameron’s discussion of failure to warn is dicta or binding precedent | Tansavatdi: Cameron governs and is binding | City: Cameron’s language was advisory dicta and should be disregarded | Held: Cameron’s failure‑to‑warn analysis is not dicta and remains binding precedent |
| Whether post‑Cameron statutory amendments to § 830.6 (1979) abrogate Cameron | Tansavatdi: amendments addressed changed‑circumstances rule, not Cameron’s independent reasoning | City: amendments show Legislature intended warnings required only when design becomes dangerous due to changed conditions | Held: 1979 amendments do not abrogate Cameron; they address loss/retention of immunity when changed physical conditions arise, not Cameron’s rule about independent failure‑to‑warn liability |
| What limits apply to a failure‑to‑warn claim that involves an immunized design | Tansavatdi: failure‑to‑warn claim survives but must meet statutory elements | City: claim should be foreclosed or limited | Held: such claims survive but plaintiff must prove notice to the entity (§ 835(b)), overcome signage immunity (concealed‑trap exception), and show absence of warning was a substantial factor in causing the injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. State of California, 7 Cal.3d 318 (Cal. 1972) (held design immunity does not necessarily bar an independent failure‑to‑warn claim arising from an approved design)
- Flournoy v. State of California, 275 Cal.App.2d 806 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) (distinguished active creation vs. passive failure to warn; passive negligence claim survives design immunity)
- Cornette v. Dept. of Transportation, 26 Cal.4th 63 (Cal. 2001) (articulated three elements of design immunity and court’s role in reviewing substantial evidence)
- Baldwin v. State of California, 6 Cal.3d 424 (Cal. 1972) (held design immunity can be lost when changed conditions render an approved design dangerous)
- Weinstein v. Department of Transportation, 139 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (adopted a narrower reading of Cameron; disapproved here)
- Anderson v. City of Thousand Oaks, 65 Cal.App.3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (recognized that immunity for a defectively designed roadway does not necessarily bar liability for failure to warn when entity had notice)