In Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2006 WL 1391201, Cal.App. 3 Dist., May 23, 2006), a California Court of Appeal considered the question of the County’s liability for a traffic accident that resulted from unsafe conditions at a county-controlled intersection.
The Court ruled that in order to establish the liability of a public entity for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property, a plaintiff must prove that the public entity acted negligently or wrongfully to create the dangerous condition. In this case, where no such negligent or wrongful act was found, the Court ruled the County was not liable.
Facts
Shortly before its intersection with McKinley Avenue, Sperry Road in San Joaquin County (“County”) rises to cross a railroad track, and then descends steeply a short distance to the intersection. Because of the proximity of the railroad track to the intersection, motorists may mistakenly believe a stop sign requires them to stop only at the railroad track, not at the intersection. Additionally, because of the angle of the grade, motorists may not see the word “Stop” on the pavement.
Thomas Metcalf was turning left from Sperry Road onto McKinley Avenue, did not realize the stop sign applied to the intersection, and also did not see the word “Stop” on the pavement. When he entered the intersection from the east without stopping, his car collided with a northbound truck and he was injured.
Metcalf sued the County under the Tort Claims Act, alleging that the intersection constituted a dangerous condition in the way it was designed, constructed and maintained, that it created a substantial risk of injury, and that the County negligently and carelessly failed to remedy the danger. A jury found that the County was responsible for the condition of the intersection, that it was indeed dangerous, and that it created a foreseeable risk of injury. However, it found that the danger was not the result of negligent or wrongful conduct by the County or an employee, and therefore the County was not liable for Metcalf’s injury. Metcalf appealed.
Decision
This case hinged on the California Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Government Code Section 835, which holds a public entity liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if “a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition,” or if the entity knew of the dangerous condition and failed to repair it in a reasonable time.
Given that, the Court said, “the Legislature could not have intended that any act by a public entity’s employee that creates a dangerous condition is negligent or wrongful per se.” Otherwise, the words “negligent or wrongful” would have no meaning, the Court said. The Court ruled, the dangerous condition itself, without a negligent or wrongful act, was insufficient to hold the County liable. There was ample evidence in this case that the dangerous condition was not the result of such a negligent or wrongful act.
There was also evidence, the Court said, that the intersection may not have been dangerous when it was created in 1941, but became dangerous over time as the area urbanized and the traffic grew more dense. Additionally, there was no evidence of complaints about the intersection, or accident reports to suggest the County should have known about and mitigated the danger.
Therefore, the County was not liable for Metcalf’s injury. The judgment was affirmed.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.