In Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, published September 24, 2026, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 4 affirmed summary judgment for the defendant city. A bicyclist riding down a city street toward an intersection failed to see an 80-foot truck turning in the intersection. He went under the wheels of the truck and passed away. His mother sued the city, alleging the roadway was a dangerous condition of public property. She attacked the design of the roadway and also alleged failure to warn. She initially argued the roadway was dangerous because a bicycle lane that appeared elsewhere on the street was not present leading up to the intersection. The trial court granted summary judgment on that claim. In a prior appeal, the appellate court affirmed that the city was entitled to design immunity for the absence of the bicycle lane, but ruled that the trial court had failed to address the claim of failure to warn of a concealed trap, which was not barred by design immunity. The California Supreme Court affirmed this decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that design immunity for creation of a dangerous condition did not categorically bar liability for failure to warn of a known dangerous condition; and that signage immunity did not bar a failure to warn claim if there was a concealed trap of which the entity had notice. The Supreme Court declined to address a situation where the design for property included the warnings that were in place on the property. On remand, the plaintiff contended the roadway was dangerous due to alleged limited sight lines, creating a concealed trap, and so required more warning signs. The city again moved for summary judgment based on design immunity, sign immunity, and lack of a concealed trap. The city pointed to extensive signage approaching the intersection warning drivers of the curve, the oncoming intersection, and the speed limit. It produced evidence that the signs were part of the approved roadway design. The trial court granted summary judgment, based both on design immunity and signage immunity.
The appellate court affirmed summary judgment, based solely on design immunity. The court ruled that when (a) the public entity has provided some warning of the allegedly dangerous condition, and (b) that warning was included as part of a reasonable plan or design that would be otherwise entitled to design immunity under section 830.6, then (c) design immunity
may apply. The court distinguished between cases in which the public entity has provided no warning of a dangerous condition, and cases–like this one–in which the public entity has provided some warning of the alleged dangerous condition but a plaintiff alleges the warning was insufficient. The court reasoned that a plaintiff’s complaint that an existing warning, approved as part of a government’s design for public infrastructure, are, in essence, complaints about the government’s design of the warning. Design immunity bars such contentions. The court further reasoned its decision was consistent with published decisions that denied qualified immunity where public entities had notice of dangerous conditions caused by approved designs, and provided no warnings. Granting design immunity in cases like this one would not allow public entities to withhold needed warnings with impunity in perpetuity; existing law provides that public entities lose design immunity where the entity has notice that changed physical conditions have caused an approved design to become dangerous in operation. Finding design immunity in cases like this would not render Government Code section 830.8’s signage immunity superflous. This separate immunity protects a government entity’s decision not to post any warning signs at all, even of a dangerous condition, except where the condition is a concealed trap. It might apply in cases where design immunity does not apply. Finally, design immunity will not immunize truly unreasonable designs, including of warnings, since the immunity requires substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the design.
Pollak, Vida & Barer is one of the firms representing the City in this case.
Leave a Reply