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 2. Dangerous Conditions of Public Property [830 – 840.6] ( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 1681. )

ARTICLE 2. Liability of Public Entities [835 – 835.4] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 1681. )

Exact Statute Text

Except as provided by statute, 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 injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either:

(a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or

(b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.

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

Government Code § 835 Summary

California Government Code § 835 is a foundational statute that outlines the conditions under which a public entity, such as a city, county, state agency, or special district, can be held liable for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition on its property. Unlike private property owners, public entities generally enjoy governmental immunity, meaning they cannot be sued unless a specific statute allows it. Section 835 is one such statute.

To establish liability under this section, an injured party (the plaintiff) must prove several key elements:
1. Dangerous Condition: The public property must have been in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury.
2. Proximate Causation: The dangerous condition must have been a direct and substantial cause of the injury.
3. Foreseeable Risk: The dangerous condition must have created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the type of injury that occurred.
4. Public Entity’s Role: In addition to the above, the plaintiff must also show *either*:
* (a) Employee Negligence: A negligent or wrongful act or omission by a public employee, acting within the scope of their job, created the dangerous condition; OR
* (b) Notice: The public entity had actual or constructive notice (knew or should have known) of the dangerous condition for a sufficient period before the injury to have taken protective measures.

Essentially, this statute allows individuals to seek compensation from public entities when their negligence or failure to address known hazards on public property leads to foreseeable harm.

Purpose of Government Code § 835

The purpose of California Government Code § 835 is to strike a balance between the principle of governmental immunity (protecting public entities from excessive lawsuits that could hinder their function) and the need to hold these entities accountable for maintaining safe public spaces. Before the Government Claims Act, it was much more difficult to sue public entities. This statute, part of that Act, explicitly creates an exception to general immunity, allowing for recovery when public property is poorly maintained or managed, leading to injury.

By requiring plaintiffs to prove specific elements like a dangerous condition, causation, foreseeability, and either employee fault or notice, the law aims to prevent frivolous lawsuits while still ensuring that public entities are incentivized to inspect, repair, and warn about hazards on properties under their control. It emphasizes public safety by encouraging responsible oversight of roads, sidewalks, parks, and other public facilities, ultimately protecting the public from foreseeable risks of harm.

Real-World Example of Government Code § 835

Imagine Sarah is walking her dog in a public park managed by the City of Oakwood. As she strolls along a paved pathway, her foot catches on a large, crumbling section of asphalt, causing her to trip and break her wrist.

To seek compensation from the City of Oakwood under Government Code § 835, Sarah’s attorney would need to demonstrate:

• Dangerous Condition: The crumbling asphalt on the public pathway was a dangerous condition because it presented a substantial risk of injury when used with due care.
• Proximate Causation: Sarah’s broken wrist was directly caused by tripping on this crumbling asphalt.
• Foreseeable Risk: A large, crumbling section of pavement in a public park pathway creates a reasonably foreseeable risk that someone could trip and fall, suffering an injury like a broken wrist.

And then, either (a) or (b):

• (a) Employee Negligence: Sarah’s attorney discovers through an investigation that a city park maintenance crew had recently performed repairs in that area, but due to negligent work, they left the asphalt in a worse, crumbling condition. In this case, the dangerous condition was created by the negligent act of a public employee within the scope of their employment.
• (b) Notice: Alternatively, Sarah’s attorney finds city records showing that multiple complaints about the crumbling asphalt in that exact location were submitted to the City of Oakwood’s parks department over the past six months, but no repairs or warnings were ever made. This would establish that the public entity had *actual notice* of the dangerous condition for a sufficient time to have fixed it or placed warning signs, but failed to do so. Even without direct complaints, if the condition was obvious and existed for a long time, the city might have had *constructive notice* (should have known).

If Sarah can prove these elements, the City of Oakwood could be held liable for her medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Related Statutes

Government Code § 835 does not stand alone but is part of a comprehensive framework within the California Government Claims Act. Several other statutes are crucial for understanding and applying Section 835:

• Gov. Code § 815 – General Immunity: This is the overarching principle that public entities are not liable for injuries arising from an act or omission unless otherwise provided by statute. Section 835 is one of the key exceptions to this general immunity.
• Gov. Code § 830 – Definitions: This section is vital as it defines key terms for the Dangerous Conditions of Public Property chapter. It specifies what constitutes a “dangerous condition” (a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used). It also defines “public property.”
• Gov. Code § 830.2 – Trivial Defect Defense: This section clarifies that a condition is not “dangerous” within the meaning of § 830 and § 835 if the risk of injury created by the condition was minor, trivial, or insignificant in light of the surrounding circumstances. Public entities often use this as a defense.
• Gov. Code § 835.2 – Actual and Constructive Notice: Directly referenced in § 835(b), this statute defines what constitutes “actual notice” (the public entity’s employee had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character) and “constructive notice” (the dangerous condition would have been discovered by an inspection system that was reasonably adequate, or by a reasonable inspection if no inspection system was in place).
• Gov. Code § 835.4 – Affirmative Defenses: This section provides public entities with two affirmative defenses. Even if the plaintiff proves the elements of § 835, the entity may escape liability if: (a) the act or omission that created the condition or the failure to take protective measures was reasonable; or (b) the action it took to protect against the risk was reasonable.
• Gov. Code § 911.2 – Claim Presentation Requirement: This is a critical procedural statute, requiring that a written claim for personal injury against a public entity be presented to the entity within six months of the date of the injury. Failure to meet this strict deadline can bar a lawsuit, even if the elements of § 835 are met.

Case Law Interpreting Government Code § 835 – Public Entity Liability for Dangerous Condition of Property

California courts have extensively interpreted Government Code § 835, shaping its application through various cases. Here are a few notable examples:

• Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, 2 Cal. 4th 130 (1991): [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=869485129614275084&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=869485129614275084&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) This seminal case clarified the definition of “dangerous condition” under Government Code § 830 and its application under § 835. The court emphasized that a condition is dangerous if it creates a substantial risk of injury to persons using the property with due care, and that the property must be dangerous in its own right, not merely dangerous when combined with third-party conduct unless that conduct is reasonably foreseeable.
• Coronado v. California, 40 Cal. 4th 395 (2007): [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17623351322230985223&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17623351322230985223&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) This case dealt with the “foreseeable risk” element of § 835, examining liability for a highway accident. The court analyzed whether the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that was incurred, particularly in the context of contributing factors like drunk driving.
• Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin, 42 Cal. 3d 321 (1978): [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15024256608821950294&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15024256608821950294&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) This case is often cited for its discussion of “constructive notice” under Gov. Code § 835.2 and its relationship to § 835(b), emphasizing the public entity’s duty to maintain a reasonable inspection system.

Why Government Code § 835 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Government Code § 835 is a cornerstone of California personal injury litigation involving public entities. For individuals injured on public property, understanding this statute is paramount, as it provides the legal pathway to holding a public entity accountable. Without § 835, most claims against public bodies for dangerous conditions would be barred by governmental immunity.

For plaintiffs and their attorneys, § 835 dictates the rigorous evidentiary requirements necessary to succeed. It’s not enough to simply show an injury occurred; every element – from defining the “dangerous condition” to proving proximate causation, foreseeability, and either employee negligence or the entity’s notice – must be meticulously investigated and supported by evidence. This often involves:

• Gathering photos and videos of the dangerous condition.
• Obtaining maintenance records, inspection logs, and complaint histories from the public entity (which can prove notice).
• Interviewing witnesses.
• Consulting with engineers or safety experts to demonstrate the defect and foreseeability of harm.
• Crucially, adhering to the strict six-month claim presentation deadline under Gov. Code § 911.2.

For public entities and their legal defense teams, § 835 defines the scope of their potential liability. While it permits lawsuits, it also provides specific defenses. They will scrutinize each element of the plaintiff’s claim, often arguing:

• The condition was not “dangerous” but rather trivial (Gov. Code § 830.2).
• The entity lacked actual or constructive notice (Gov. Code § 835.2).
• The injury was not proximately caused by the condition.
• Their actions or inactions were reasonable under the circumstances (Gov. Code § 835.4).

In essence, Government Code § 835 creates a distinct and often more challenging legal landscape for personal injury cases involving public property compared to those against private landowners. Both plaintiffs and defendants must navigate its specific requirements and the intricate interplay with related statutes, making expert legal counsel indispensable for anyone involved in such a claim.