By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.
Hurt by unsafe public property?
Leave your name and phone. We call back today, in English or Spanish. The consultation is free and confidential.
Free consultation · English y Español · No fees or costs unless we win
Public entity liability comes only from statutes
A private property owner can be sued for ordinary negligence. A public entity cannot. Gov. Code § 815 says that except as a statute provides, a public entity “is not liable for an injury,” and any liability a statute creates is subject to statutory immunities and the defenses a private party would have.
The California Supreme Court applied that rule in Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820. A man slipped on lunch meat in a school hallway; no one knew how it got there, and the district had no notice. The court held that public entity liability is statutory only, that § 835 sets the exclusive conditions for liability for property conditions, and that res ipsa loquitur could not by itself make the case under § 835(a). (The court expressly did not decide whether lunch meat on a floor can be a dangerous condition.) The lesson: every claim about unsafe public property has to fit § 835.
The elements of a Gov. Code 835 claim
Section 835 says a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the condition proximately caused the injury, that it created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred, and that either (a) an employee acting within the scope of employment negligently or wrongfully created the condition, or (b) the entity had actual or constructive notice under § 835.2 in time to take measures to protect against it (Gov. Code § 835).
| Element | What it means | Evidence that proves it |
|---|---|---|
| Public property | The City (or other entity) owned or controlled the property. Easements and encroachments it does not own or control do not count (§ 830(c)). | Maps, parcel and street records, permits, maintenance records showing who worked on it. |
| Dangerous condition | A condition that creates a substantial (not minor or trivial) risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a foreseeable way (§ 830(a)). | Measurements, photos, video, lighting and sight-line evidence, prior accidents and complaints, expert opinion. |
| Causation | The condition was a proximate cause of the injury. | Witnesses, police report, scene reconstruction, medical records tying the injury to the event. |
| Foreseeable kind of injury | The condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that happened. | Similar prior incidents, the City’s own standards, engineering testimony. |
| Created by an employee, or notice | Either a City employee’s negligent or wrongful act created the condition, or the City had actual or constructive notice long enough before the injury to protect against it (§ 835.2). | Work orders, MyLA311 service requests, prior claims and complaints, inspection logs, how long the condition existed. |
“Protect against” includes repairing, remedying or correcting the condition, providing safeguards, or warning of it (§ 830(b)). A warning sign or barrier can matter on both sides of a case.
Free public property injury case review
Tell us what happened. We will tell you plainly whether there is a case and what to do next. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Notice: actual and constructive
Most cases that do not involve an employee-created hazard turn on notice. Under Gov. Code § 835.2:
- Actual notice means the entity actually knew the condition existed and knew or should have known it was dangerous.
- Constructive notice means the condition existed for long enough, and was obvious enough, that the entity should have discovered it using due care. Evidence can include whether a reasonably adequate inspection system would have found it and whether the entity ran its inspection system with due care.
The injured person carries this burden. In Los Angeles, the usual proof is MyLA311 service requests, earlier claims and lawsuits at the same location, repair work orders and inspection records. We request those records early in every case.
The City’s defenses
Reasonable conduct (§ 835.4). Even after a dangerous condition is shown, the entity escapes liability if it proves its act or omission was reasonable. For a notice case, reasonableness is judged by the time and opportunity the entity had and by weighing the probability and gravity of the potential injury against the practicability and cost of protecting against it (Gov. Code § 835.4). The entity bears this burden.
Trivial defect (§ 830.2). A court can rule, viewing the evidence in the injured person’s favor, that a risk was so minor that no reasonable person would find a substantial risk of injury (Gov. Code § 830.2). This is the main defense in sidewalk cases; our sidewalk trip and fall page has a table of the leading cases and which side won each.
Design immunity (§ 830.6). An entity is generally not liable for an injury caused by the approved plan or design of a road or other improvement if there is substantial evidence a reasonable official could have approved it (Gov. Code § 830.6). In Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, a freeway case, the Supreme Court said the entity must show three things: a causal link between the design and the accident, discretionary approval of the design before construction, and substantial evidence that the design was reasonable. The court decides reasonableness. The immunity can be lost when changed physical conditions make the design dangerous, the entity has notice, and it has a reasonable time to fix the problem or warn; disputed facts on that question go to a jury.
When another driver or a nearby hazard is involved
Public property often makes an accident worse rather than starting it. In Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1099, a car forced off Colorado Boulevard in Eagle Rock by another driver hit a magnolia tree in a City median. The Supreme Court held the plaintiff did not have to show the condition caused the other driver’s conduct; it is enough that the condition proximately caused the injury, and the City “is not categorically immune” because a third party started the chain of events. The court sent the case back without deciding whether the median was dangerous.
In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, the court held that the location of a bus stop can be a dangerous condition when it forces riders to face a hazard on nearby property the entity does not own, there a dangerous intersection riders had to cross. Every § 835 element is still required, and the court said the ordinary risk of being hit by a driver on the way to a public facility is not enough by itself.
Hazards created by City employees
Under § 835(a), notice is not required if a City employee created the condition through a negligent or wrongful act, such as a crew that leaves an unmarked trench or a raised plate. A separate statute makes an entity liable for injuries its employees cause on the job when the employee could be sued for them (Gov. Code § 815.2). City vehicle crashes have their own page: accident with a City vehicle.
File a claim first
No lawsuit can go forward until a claim is filed. For personal injury, death or damage to personal property, the claim is due six months after the claim accrues; other claims, such as damage to real property, have one year (Gov. Code § 911.2). Claims against the City of Los Angeles go to the City Clerk, online at claims.lacity.org, by mail or in person at 200 N. Spring St., Room 395 (City Clerk). If the property belongs to another agency, see which agency do I file with. Missed the deadline? See late claims.
Related pages
- How to file a claim against the City of Los Angeles
- Sidewalk trip and fall claims
- Pothole damage claims
- Trees, parks and other City property
- Claim deadline
- How much does the City pay?
- Pothole or dangerous road crash: can you sue?
- Hit while crossing the street in Los Angeles
- Los Angeles pedestrian accident lawyer
Common questions
What are the elements of a dangerous condition of public property claim in California?
Under Government Code section 835, you must prove the property was in a dangerous condition when you were hurt, the condition proximately caused the injury, it created a reasonably foreseeable risk of that kind of injury, and either a public employee created it or the entity had actual or constructive notice of it in time to protect against it.
What is a dangerous condition under Government Code 830?
A condition of public property that creates a substantial, as opposed to minor, trivial or insignificant, risk of injury when the property or adjacent property is used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable way.
What is constructive notice under Government Code 835.2?
The condition existed long enough and was obvious enough that the public entity, using due care, should have discovered it and its danger. Evidence about whether a reasonable inspection system would have found it is admissible.
What is design immunity in California?
Under Government Code section 830.6, a public entity is generally not liable for an injury caused by an approved design of a road or improvement if substantial evidence shows a reasonable official could have approved it. Cornette v. Department of Transportation holds the immunity can be lost when changed conditions make the design dangerous and the entity has notice and time to act.
Can I sue the City if another driver caused the crash?
Possibly. In Cordova v. City of Los Angeles, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need only show the dangerous condition proximately caused the injury, not that it caused the other driver’s conduct.
Can I sue a city for ordinary negligence?
No. Under Government Code section 815, a public entity is liable only where a statute makes it liable. For unsafe public property, section 835 is the statute.
Ask a question
Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.
Dangerous condition of public property lawyer in Los Angeles — Beverly Law
We gather the 311 requests, work orders and prior claims that prove notice, and file your claim before the deadline. Free, confidential, English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Sources
- Cal. Gov. Code § 815
- Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2
- Cal. Gov. Code § 830
- Cal. Gov. Code § 830.2
- Cal. Gov. Code § 830.6
- Cal. Gov. Code § 835
- Cal. Gov. Code § 835.2
- Cal. Gov. Code § 835.4
- Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2
- Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820
- Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63
- Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1099
- Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139
- L.A. City Clerk, File a claim
Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. Last reviewed: November 6, 2026.