How To Prove A California Loss of Design Immunity Claim

In California, a claim of Loss of Design Immunity is defined as:
A public entity can lose its design immunity if a previously approved plan or design becomes dangerous due to changed physical conditions, the entity has notice of this danger, and it fails to take reasonable steps to remedy the situation or provide adequate warnings.
It simply means:
Loss of design immunity occurs when physical conditions change and produce a health issue in a previously immune design.
There are 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The plan or design of a property became dangerous because of a change in physical conditions. A Loss of Design Immunity Claim occurs when a property’s original design becomes unsafe due to changes in the environment, like increased traffic or flooding, which the designers couldn’t have anticipated, making them liable for any resulting accidents or damages.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The original design of the property included adequate drainage systems, which became ineffective after a significant increase in rainfall patterns over the years.
* The landscaping plan initially provided sufficient visibility for drivers, but the growth of trees and shrubs obstructed sightlines, creating a hazardous condition.
* The property was designed with a specific load-bearing capacity, but subsequent soil erosion reduced its stability, leading to dangerous conditions.
* The installation of new utility lines altered the terrain, resulting in unexpected slopes that posed a risk to pedestrians.
* Changes in nearby construction activities shifted water flow patterns, overwhelming the property’s drainage system and causing flooding hazards. - Element 2. The defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition thus created. The defendant knew or should have known about the unsafe situation they created, which is an important part of proving a claim that they can’t avoid responsibility for a design flaw that led to an injury or damage.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant received multiple complaints from residents about the hazardous condition in the area, indicating awareness of the danger.
* The defendant’s maintenance records show that inspections were conducted regularly, highlighting the existence of the dangerous condition prior to the incident.
* Photographic evidence demonstrates that the dangerous condition had been present for an extended period, suggesting the defendant should have noticed it.
* The defendant was previously involved in similar incidents, which would have alerted them to the potential risks associated with the condition.
* Local government reports indicated ongoing issues with the dangerous condition, which were accessible to the defendant, establishing constructive notice. - Element 3. The defendant had a reasonable time to obtain the funds and carry out the necessary corrective work to conform the property to a reasonable design or plan, or the defendant was unable to correct the condition due to practical impossibility or lack of funds but did not reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the dangerous condition. The defendant had enough time to fix the property issues or couldn’t do so due to financial or practical reasons, but failed to give proper warnings about the dangerous condition.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant was aware of the hazardous condition for over six months but failed to take any corrective action during that time.
* The defendant received multiple complaints from tenants regarding the dangerous condition but did not implement any warning signs or safety measures.
* The defendant had access to financial resources that could have been allocated for the necessary repairs but chose to prioritize other expenditures instead.
* The defendant was informed by a qualified inspector about the risks associated with the property, yet no warnings were posted to alert visitors or residents.
* Despite having a reasonable timeframe to address the issue, the defendant did not seek assistance or funding options to remedy the dangerous condition. - Element 4. The plaintiff was harmed. In a Loss of Design Immunity Claim, the plaintiff must show that they suffered actual harm or injury as a result of the design or construction of a public project, proving that the flawed design directly caused their damages.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff incurred significant financial losses due to the construction delays caused by the defendant’s design flaws.
* The plaintiff experienced physical injuries as a result of unsafe conditions stemming from the defendant’s design decisions.
* The plaintiff’s property value decreased substantially after the discovery of defects in the defendant’s design.
* The plaintiff faced increased repair costs due to the need to address issues arising from the defendant’s design errors.
* The plaintiff suffered emotional distress as a result of the ongoing safety concerns linked to the defendant’s design. - Element 5. There was a causal relationship between the plan or design and harm to the plaintiff. In a Loss of Design Immunity Claim, it must be shown that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was directly caused by the flaws in the plan or design, meaning that if the design had been better, the injury or damage would not have occurred.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The design of the roadway included inadequate drainage systems, which led to flooding during heavy rainstorms.
* The placement of traffic signals was not aligned with industry standards, resulting in multiple accidents at the intersection.
* The lack of proper signage warning of sharp turns contributed to a driver losing control and crashing.
* The design failed to account for pedestrian safety, leading to an increase in accidents involving pedestrians.
* The materials used in the construction were substandard, causing structural failures that directly harmed users of the facility.
(See Cornette v. Department of Transp., 26 P. 3d 332, 26 Cal. 4th 63, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 (Cal. Supreme Court 2001).)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Loss of Design Immunity, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.
Prove Your CA Loss of Design Immunity Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only