Design Immunity Does Not Exist Even If City Engineer Made Decision To Place Safety Devices

The case Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks seems to continue a recent trend to limit immunity under dangerous condition law.  This time, the court applied a very narrow reading of the law to overturn the granting of summary judgment.

In 2011, the City of Thousand Oaks made safety improvements to an intersection at a busy street.  At that time, the approved plan did not include warning beacons.  Later, the traffic engineer for the City decided to add the warning beacons.  At the time, the Municipal Code for the City provided that the City Engineer had the authority to place and maintain traffic control devices that in the opinion of the engineer was necessary.

In Castro, Plaintiff, her two young children, and two other children under her care attempted to cross the busy street. Plaintiff activated the pedestrian warning beacon before crossing. A vehicle in the number two lane stopped. A motorist in the number one lane failed to see the warning beacon or Plaintiff and collided with her and the four children. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged the warning beacons installed by the City created a substantial risk of injury because they lulled pedestrians into a false sense of security while crossing the street.

The City moved for summary judgment and claimed it was entitled to design immunity and immune from liability under California Government Code § 830.6. The City asserted its engineer approved the plan to install the beacons and the approval was reasonable. Plaintiff opposed the motion and argued the City Engineer merely had authority to “place and maintain” traffic control devices, but lacked the authority to “approve” a traffic control plan. The trial court granted the City’s motion.  Plaintiff appealed the ruling.

The Court of Appeal reversed and applied a narrow reading of Section 830.6. The Court noted Section 830.6 requires a plan or design to be approved by a legislative body of the public entity or by some other body exercising discretionary authority to give such approval. The City argued its Municipal Code vests the City Engineer with the authority to “place and maintain” traffic control devices necessary to protect public safety. The Court of Appeal noted the City Engineer lacked authority to “approve” the plan or design for the traffic control device. The Court held the City Engineer’s authority to purchase and install traffic control devices did not give him the necessary discretionary authority to approve such plan.

The trial court, and seemingly even the Court of Appeal, acknowledged that the placement of the warning beacons increase safety of the intersection.  However, the Court applied a very strict interpretation of design immunity law.  The Court focused on the fact there was not a specific plan, and that simply placing the beacons to protect safety was not enough.  The lesson to be learned is that all such engineer decisions need to be pursuant to a specific plan or design that is approved by the public entity or other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval.