Code Details

Government Code – GOV
TITLE 1. GENERAL [100 – 7931.000] ( Title 1 enacted by Stats. 1943, Ch. 134. )
DIVISION 3.6. CLAIMS AND ACTIONS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES [810 – 998.3] ( Division 3.6 added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 1681. )
PART 2. LIABILITY OF PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES [814 – 895.8] ( Part 2 added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 1681. )
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions Relating to Liability [814 – 827] ( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 1681. )

ARTICLE 2. Liability of Public Entities [815 – 818.9] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 1681. )

Exact Statute Text

Except as otherwise provided by statute:

(a) A public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.

(b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person.

(Added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 1681.)

Government Code § 815 Summary

California Government Code § 815 establishes the fundamental principle that public entities (such as state agencies, cities, counties, and school districts) are generally immune from liability for injuries. This immunity is broad, covering injuries resulting from the acts or omissions of the public entity itself, its employees, or any other person. The critical phrase is “Except as otherwise provided by statute,” meaning a public entity can only be held liable if a specific statute creates that liability. The statute also clarifies that any statutorily imposed liability is still subject to other statutory immunities and any defenses that would be available if the public entity were a private person. In essence, there is no common law (judge-made law) liability for public entities in California; all liability must originate from a legislative act.

Purpose of Government Code § 815

Government Code § 815 serves as the cornerstone of governmental immunity in California, designed to address several critical public policy objectives. Before the enactment of the California Tort Claims Act in 1963 (which includes this section), the law regarding public entity liability was complex and often inconsistent, stemming from common law principles and various judicial exceptions. This statute was enacted to clarify that public entities would not be held liable unless the Legislature *explicitly* provided for such liability through a specific statute.

The primary purpose is to protect public funds and allow government agencies to perform their essential functions without the constant threat of extensive litigation based on general tort principles. It aims to ensure that the scope of public entity liability is a matter of legislative determination, reflecting policy decisions about where the financial burden of injuries should lie. This legislative control helps manage taxpayer exposure, ensures predictability in budgeting for potential liabilities, and allows public entities to prioritize services without being unduly burdened by common law negligence claims that might apply to private citizens or corporations.

Real-World Example of Government Code § 815

Imagine Sarah is walking on a sidewalk in her city and trips over an uneven slab, severely spraining her ankle. She believes the city is responsible for maintaining the sidewalks and wants to sue for her injuries.

Under common law principles, if a private property owner had a dangerous condition on their property that caused injury, they might be liable for negligence. However, because the sidewalk is public property, Government Code § 815 immediately comes into play.

According to § 815, the City, as a public entity, is *not liable* for Sarah’s injury *unless* a specific statute says it is. Sarah cannot simply sue the city based on general negligence principles. Instead, her attorney would need to identify a specific statute that creates an exception to this immunity. In this case, they would likely look to Government Code § 835, which imposes liability on public entities for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of public property under certain circumstances. If Sarah cannot establish liability under § 835 (or another relevant statute), her claim against the City would fail due to the broad immunity granted by § 815.

Related Statutes

• Government Code § 835 – Liability for Dangerous Conditions of Public Property: This is one of the most frequently referenced statutes alongside § 815. While § 815 declares a general immunity, § 835 creates an *exception* by imposing liability on public entities for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of their property, provided the entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to take reasonable steps to protect against it.
• Government Code § 815.2 – Public Entity Liability for Acts or Omissions of Employees: This section outlines that a public entity is liable for an injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee within the scope of their employment if the employee is also liable. Conversely, if the employee is immune, the public entity is also immune. This provides a statutory basis for vicarious liability, serving as another exception to the general immunity of § 815.
• Government Code § 810.8 – Definition of “Injury”: Defines “injury” as meaning “death, injury to a person, damage to or loss of property, or any other injury that a person may suffer to his person, reputation, character, feelings or estate, of such nature that it would be actionable if inflicted by a private person.” This helps clarify the scope of harm covered by the “injury” mentioned in § 815.
• Government Code § 820 – Liability of Public Employee: This statute establishes the general rule that, except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is liable for injuries caused by their acts or omissions to the same extent as a private person. This is often read in conjunction with § 815.2, as a public entity’s liability can flow from an employee’s liability.
• Government Code § 814 – General Declaration of Legislative Intent: This section, immediately preceding § 815, declares that the provisions of this part (regarding liability and immunity of public entities and employees) are intended to be the exclusive source of public entity liability. It explicitly states that “nothing in this part affects the liability of a public entity under any contract or under the workers’ compensation law.”

Case Law Interpreting Government Code § 815

Government Code § 815 is a foundational statute frequently cited and interpreted in California personal injury law. Courts consistently emphasize its role in establishing that public entity liability is *purely statutory*.

• _Williams v. State of California_, 34 Cal.3d 18 (1983): This landmark case reinforced the principle that “Government Code section 815 abolishes all common law tort liability for public entities.” The court affirmed that a public entity’s liability must be based on statute and that where a statute does not impose liability, the immunity declared by section 815 prevails. [Link to Google Scholar: Williams v. State of California, 34 Cal. 3d 18 – Cal: Supreme Court 1983](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=849206771146603009&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
• _A.M. v. Ventura Unified School Dist._, 219 Cal. App. 4th 237 (2013): This case reiterated that “public entities are immune from liability unless a statute provides to the contrary.” The court noted that Gov. Code § 815 is the “first section of the Tort Claims Act and establishes that ‘public entities are not liable for injuries arising out of the performance of their functions unless otherwise provided by statute.'” [Link to Google Scholar: A.M. v. Ventura Unified School Dist., 219 Cal. App. 4th 237 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 6th Div. 2013](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17523924372551468234&q=A.M.+v.+Ventura+Unified+School+Dist.&hl=en&as_sdt=6,5&as_vis=1)
• _Cochran v. Contra Costa County_, 179 Cal. App. 3d 314 (1986): This decision further clarified that a public entity has no liability “except as provided by statute.” It emphasized that the California Tort Claims Act was intended to “abolish all common law tort liability for public entities and to recreate it only to the extent provided by statute.” [Link to Google Scholar: Cochran v. Contra Costa County, 179 Cal. App. 3d 314 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 5th Div. 1986](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10915609347898516147&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
• _Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist._, 40 Cal. 3d 782 (1985): While primarily dealing with the duty of care, the court in its analysis touched upon the fundamental principle that “a public entity is liable for injury only if a statute declares it to be liable.” This case implicitly reinforces the “except as otherwise provided by statute” clause of Gov Code § 815. [Link to Google Scholar: Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., 40 Cal. 3d 782 – Cal: Supreme Court 1985](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17789437998634568897&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

Why Government Code § 815 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Government Code § 815 is arguably the most crucial statute when pursuing a personal injury claim against a public entity in California. Its implications profoundly shape plaintiff strategy and defense arguments:

• No Common Law Basis for Liability: For plaintiffs, this statute means they cannot simply allege general negligence (e.g., duty, breach, causation, damages) as they would against a private defendant. Instead, they *must* identify a specific California statute that imposes liability on the public entity for the particular type of injury and circumstances involved. This adds a significant layer of complexity to public entity claims.
• Shifted Burden: The burden is on the plaintiff to find and prove a statutory basis for liability. If no such statute exists, the public entity is immune, and the claim will fail, regardless of how clear the injury or the public entity’s fault might seem under common law.
• Initial Defense Strategy: For public entities, Government Code § 815 provides a powerful initial defense. Their attorneys will invariably start by asserting governmental immunity. It then falls to the plaintiff to overcome this immunity by pointing to a specific statutory exception.
• Focus on Statutory Exceptions: This statute forces both plaintiffs and their attorneys to thoroughly research and understand the various exceptions to public entity immunity, such as those related to dangerous conditions of public property (Gov Code § 835), vicarious liability for employee acts (Gov Code § 815.2), or specific statutory duties.
• Impact on Settlement Negotiations: The existence of statutory immunity heavily influences settlement discussions. If a plaintiff struggles to identify or prove a statutory basis for liability, the public entity’s incentive to settle may be significantly lower, as they have a strong defense. Conversely, a clear statutory basis for liability weakens the immunity defense, potentially leading to more favorable outcomes for plaintiffs.

In essence, Government Code § 815 acts as a gatekeeper. It ensures that any successful personal injury claim against a state, county, or city entity in California is not based on general notions of fairness or negligence but on explicit legislative intent to allow such a claim.