In Laabs v. City of Victorville, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2008 WL 2375153, Cal.App. 4 Dist., June 12, 2008), a California Court of Appeal considered a case in which a passenger of a vehicle involved in an accident appealed a trial court ruling that the doctrine of design immunity protected the city from liability for the accident; as well as the city’s appeal of a ruling that it was not entitled to recover attorney’s fees.
The court upheld both rulings, finding that design immunity applied as a matter of law and the plaintiff did not show that such immunity was lost due to “changed circumstances,” but also ruled that the city could not recover attorney’s fees because the plaintiff’s claims were not objectively unreasonable.
Facts
Amanda Laabs (“Laabs”) was a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in a collision at the intersection of Ridgecrest Road and Pebble Beach Drive in the City of Victorville (“City”). The accident occurred when the northbound car in which Laabs was riding struck another vehicle turning from a westbound lane into the southbound lanes. Laabs charged that the City’s negligence caused the accident because it created and failed to correct dangerous road conditions resulting from inadequate site distance and a lack of warning signs, devices and signals.
The City moved for summary judgment citing design immunity under Government Code Sections 830.6 and 830.8. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City but denied the City’s motion to recover its costs and expenses. Laabs appealed the first part of the ruling; the City appealed the second part.
Decision
Under design immunity, a public entity is not liable for a dangerous condition of its property if it demonstrates that the injury was caused by property constructed in accordance with an approved plan or design. The court explained the entity must demonstrate a relationship between the plan and the accident, approval of the plan prior to construction, and substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan.
Here, the court found the first two prongs of that test were clearly met. The qualities of the property that Laabs blamed for the accident were clearly included in plans developed and approved by the City prior to construction. As to the third prong, the reasonableness of the plan, the testimony of an expert witness that the roadway at the location of the accident was “not only reasonable but is an excellent design,” was implicit evidence that the design plan was reasonably approved. Consequently, the court ruled there was no triable issue of fact as to the applicability of design immunity.
The court also rejected Laabs’ contention that “changed circumstances” forfeited the right to design immunity. The court found that claim was supported by no evidence or statistical data that traffic or other conditions at the location had changed since its construction.
As to the City’s appeal seeking reimbursement of its attorney’s fees and costs, the court ruled that the City’s grant of summary judgment, while proper, was not a foregone conclusion and in fact turned on the declaration of a single expert witness. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim was objectively reasonable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City’s request for reimbursement.
Summary judgment for the City, as well as denial of its motion for costs, were both affirmed.