California Codes
Cal. Government Code § 815 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 404
cases (137 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Wells v. One2One Learning Found., 141 P.3d 225 (Cal. 2006).
Wells v. One2One Learning Found., 141 P.3d 225 (Cal. 2006). “(5) Finally, a qui tam action under the CFCA against a charter school operator is not subject to the Tort Claims Act (TCA; Gov.Code, § 815 et seq.) requirement of prior presentment of a claim for payment (see id.”
Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 496 P.2d 480 (Cal. 1972). “" (8) The Senate committee comments make clear that the Tort Claims Act itself does not provide for governmental liability for nuisance: "[T]here is no section in this statute declaring that public entities are liable for nuisance, even though the California courts have…”
Hoff v. Vacaville Unified Sch. Dist., 968 P.2d 522 (Cal. 1998). “*815 The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, finding that the District owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising its students for the protection of both students and nonstudents.”
Zelig v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 45 P.3d 1171 (Cal. 2002). “2), the Act contains no provision similarly providing that a public entity generally is hable for its own conduct or omission to the same extent as a private person or entity.”
Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Prot. Dist., 444 P.3d 688 (Cal. 2019). “1 The basic architecture of the Act is encapsulated in Government Code section 815.”
Gates v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). “(Gov. Code, § 815; Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co.”
Munoz v. City of Union City, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “Amaya (collectively referred to herein as respondents). After this claim was rejected, respondents filed a complaint for damages in Alameda County Superior Court on November 25, 1998.”
The Regents of the Univ. of California v. Superior Court, 413 P.3d 656 (Cal. 2018). “The trial court properly denied summary judgment on this ground. B. A College's Duty to Protect Students from Foreseeable Harm Because UCLA is a public entity, its exposure to tort liability is nominally defined by statute.”
Thomas v. City of Richmond, 892 P.2d 1185 (Cal. 1995). “" (Gov. Code, § 815.) "Government Code section 810 et seq.”
Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees' Ret. Sys., 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “However, SDCERS contends on appeal that we should affirm the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer to those causes of action by concluding that it is immune from tort liability under the Government Claims Act.”
State Dep't of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, 349 P.3d 1013 (Cal. 2015). “‖ (Gov. Code, § 815; see Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist.”
Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2011). “Cal. Gov't Code § 815 , Legislative Comm.”
— Cal. Government Code § 815(a) — 20 cases
Jacobson v. Schwarzenegger, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (C.D. Cal. 2004).
Mendez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2008).
Nozzi v. Hous. Auth., 806 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015).
Villarreal v. Cnty. of Monterey, 254 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist., 691 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
— Cal. Government Code § 815(b) — 3 cases
Megargee v. Wittman, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
(PC) Lewis v. Gipson (E.D. Cal. 2021).
(PC) Hepner v. Cnty. of Tulare (E.D. Cal. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.