SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - California law provides broad immunity from lawsuits over how cities design their streets but plaintiffs can still sue over a lack of warning signs, the state’s highest court ruled, upholding a 50-year-old precedent against arguments it was illogical.
In a decision supported by the Consumer Attorneys of California and opposition from local governments, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the mother of a bicyclist who was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer after he rode into an intersection in Rancho Palos Verdes. The design of the intersection was immune from suit, the high court ruled, but the plaintiff can still sue over claims the city failed to warn about a stretch of road where the bike lane went away.
In 2016 Jonathan Tansavatdi was rode his bicycle into an intersection on Hawthorne Boulevard, where he was hit and killed by a tractor-trailer making a right turn. Tansavatdi’s mother, Betty, sued the city for maintaining a dangerous intersection and failing to warn of “dangerous conditions.”
As the case progressed, the plaintiff focused on how a bike lane ended for a block uphill of the intersection to accommodate parallel parking. A traffic engineer testified for the city that the design met all state and federal guidelines and this was the only accident that had occurred in the intersection between 2006 and 2017.
Tansavatdi argued the city still could be liable for failing to install warning signs. The city argued that wasn’t necessary since there was no evidence the intersection was unreasonably dangerous and there was a sign warning vehicles to reduce their speed. The trial court dismissed the case but the Second Appellate Division reversed, citing Cameron vs. California, a 1972 decision establishing the distinction between “active” liability for street design decisions, which is prohibited; and “passive” liability for failure to install warning signs, which is allowed.
The City of Palos Verdes urged the California Supreme Court to overrule Cameron, arguing the holding was illogical given a reasonable street design shouldn’t require warning signs. The Supreme Court declined the invitation, however, ruling that California legislators had decades to reverse Cameron but had failed to do so. Lawmakers amended Section 830.6 of the Government Code in 1979 to allow lawsuits over the failure to warn about designs that are no longer considered safe, the court ruled, but that doesn’t mean the legislature intended to bar all other lawsuits over warning signs.
With its April 27 decision, the court rejected the reasoning of by two California appeals courts, including a court that ruled it would be illogical to allow plaintiffs to sue for failing to warn about a highway design feature when the design itself was immune.
Cameron recognizes that a design might be the best engineers can do under the circumstances but still leave foreseeable dangers that can and should be addressed through appropriate warnings,” the court said. The city still might prevail if it can show the lack of warning signs was itself a reasonable design decision, the court added.
If the Legislature ultimately comes to agree with the City that design immunity should likewise preclude all claims asserting that the public entity failed to warn of dangers resulting from approved elements of a roadway design, it can act accordingly,” the court concluded.
The plaintiff was represented by Mardirossian & Associates. The city was supported by the California Department of Transportation, the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association, California Association of Joint Powers Authorities and Independent Cities Risk Management Authority.