No Failure to Warn When Design Plans Include Warnings
Summary Plaintiffs, Kierra and Merek Stufkosky sued the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) for dangerous condition of public property after their father died in a car accident on State Route 154 (SR-154). The plaintiffs argued the portion of SR-154 where the accident occurred constituted a dangerous condition because Caltrans failed to adequately warn motorists of frequent deer crossing. In Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 492, a Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment for Caltrans based on the affirmative defense of design immunity holding that failure to warn was not an independent theory from design immunity because Caltrans could show it considered and incorporated warning of the alleged dangerous condition in the design plans.
Discussion: A motorist struck a deer while driving westbound on SR-154 near Santa Ynez, California. The impact sent the deer into the eastbound lane where it struck an oncoming SUV. The SUV lost control, veered across the centerline, and collided head on with a westbound car driven by Jorgen Stufkosky who died of his injuries. The plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action against Caltrans premised on a dangerous condition claim under Government Code section 835. Caltrans asserted the affirmative defense of design immunity under Government Code section 830.6. Caltrans argued it met all three elements of design immunity: (1) causal connection between plan and accident; (2) discretionary approval of the design; and (3) reasonableness of the design.
As to the first element, the Plaintiffs contended Caltrans could not establish a causal relationship between SR-154’s design and the accident because the agency had not “expressly considered” the design alternatives the plaintiffs argued would have prevented the accident (i.e., such as lowering the speed limit, placing more deer crossing signs and installing median barriers.) The Court rejected this argument finding the evidence they cited to be immaterial.
As for the second element of design immunity, Caltrans produced detailed plans of the relevant stretch of highway and established: (1) the design was approved in advance by its board, and (2) the design conformed with standards previously approved by the agency. The plaintiffs contended design immunity applied only if the public entity expressly considered the feature in advance of their ultimate decision, but the Court rejected this interpretation. The Court pointed out advance approval meant only approval in advance of construction by the legislative body or officer exercising discretionary authority. A detailed plan is enough to satisfy the element.
Finally, as to the third element of design immunity, the plaintiffs contended the trial court did not address their separate and independent allegation that Caltrans created a dangerous condition when it failed to adequately warn drivers of deer crossings. They cited the California Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verde (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 in support of this argument. The Court of Appeal disagreed finding that Tansavatdi: (1) held only that design immunity did not shield a city for liability for a “concealed trap”, and (2) Tansavatdi did not decide whether design immunity affected a failure to warn claim when the public entity does produce evidence that it considered whether to provide a warning. Here, Caltrans produced evidence that its design plans specified the quantity and placement of deer crossing signs, and the Court found the warnings adequate.
A copy of the case can be found here.
This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Maria Nozzolino.