Dangerous
Condition of Public Property
Overview
A dangerous
condition of public property case is similar to a premises liability
case. Although they are similar, they are not the same. For
related information go to
Premises Liability.
To establish the
claim of a dangerous condition of public property, the plaintiff
must prove:
That the defendant owned or controlled the property;
That the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the
incident;
That the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk
of the kind of incident that occurred;
That
negligent conduct of the defendant's employee acting within the
scope of his or her employment created the dangerous condition or
defendant had notice of the dangerous condition for a long enough
time to have protected against it;
That the plaintiff was harmed; and
That
the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing
plaintiff's harm.
CACI 1100
(CACI are the approved jury
instructions from the Judicial Council of California. Jury
instructions are read to the jury by the judge and establish the law
the jury must follow in deciding the case. A partner of Cheong,
Denove, Rowell & Bennett has been formally recognized as one of the
attorneys who assisted the task force in the preparation of these
jury instructions.)
The jury
is instructed that "a ?dangerous condition? is a condition of public
property that creates a substantial risk of injury to members of the
general public who are using the property with reasonable care and
in a reasonably foreseeable manner. A condition that creates only a
minor risk of injury is not a dangerous condition."
CACI 1102
Types of Dangerous
Condition of Public Property Cases:
Unsafe conditions in government-owned or operated buildings
Inoperable signal lights
Absent or broken street lights
Inadequate or absent guard rails
Dangerously designed crosswalks
Inadequate traffic warning signs such as
"curve
ahead," "slow," "merging traffic," or "slippery when wet."
Typical Defenses:
Plaintiff was negligent
The risk of harm was minor
Defendant did not create the dangerous condition
Design immunity
Impractical and too costly to take alternative action
Defendant did not have sufficient time to discover, warn against, or
correct the dangerous situation
Click to enlarge
Conclusion
There are many pitfalls an inexperienced
attorney may be unaware of when handling a case against a public
entity. The attorneys at Cheong, Denove, Rowell & Bennett have
written and lectured on the subject of dangerous condition of public
property.
 |
Cheong, Denove, Rowell & Bennett
has the extensive resources to handle the most complex legal
matters, yet is small enough to offer individualized service to our
clients.
At Cheong,
Denove, Rowell & Bennett we believe the more you know, the
better choice you will make.
Contact Us
|
