TANSAVATDI v. CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (2021)

Supreme Court of California.2021-04-28No. S267453

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is granted, with the scope of review limited to the single issue of whether a public entity may face liability under Government Code section 830.8 for failure to warn of an allegedly dangerous design of public property protected by Government Code section 830.6 design immunity.

The California Supreme Court granted a petition for review in a case concerning whether a public entity can be held liable for failing to warn of a dangerous design in public property. The Court limited the issues for briefing and argument to this single question of law. The Court of Appeal opinion is now citable for its persuasive value and to establish a conflict in authority, allowing trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales when faced with conflicting precedent on this issue.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Public entity liability for failure to warn of dangerous design
Interaction between design immunity and failure-to-warn liability
Scope of Government Code sections 830.6 and 830.8

Procedural posture

The California Supreme Court granted a petition for review and limited the issues to be briefed on appeal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Issues ordered limited. The order filed on April 21, 2021 is amended in its entirety as follows: The petition for review is granted. Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 60 Cal.App.5th 423, 274 Cal.Rptr.3d 512, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)

The only issue to be briefed and argued is the following (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.516(a)): Can a public entity be held liable under Government Code section 830.8 for failure to warn of an allegedly dangerous design of public property that is subject to Government Code section 830.6 design immunity?, Groban, and Jenkins, JJ.