(a)A public entity had actual notice of a dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 if it had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character.
(b)A public entity had constructive notice of a dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 only if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous
character. On the issue of due care, admissible evidence includes but is not limited to evidence as to:
(1)Whether the existence of the condition and its dangerous character would have been discovered by an inspection system that was reasonably adequate (considering the practicability and cost of inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the potential danger to which failure to inspect would give rise) to inform the public entity whether the property was safe for the use or uses for which the public entity used or intended others to use the public property and for uses that the public entity actually knew others were making of the public property or adjacent property.
(2)Whether the public entity maintained and operated such an inspection system with due care and did not discover the condition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case:
Cole v. Town of Los Gatos, 205 Cal. App. 4th 749 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
Cole v. Town of Los Gatos, 205 Cal. App. 4th 749 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “) Government Code section 835.2 elaborates on this requirement.”
Nishihama v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).
“2, accordingly, expressly recognizes that in determining whether a public entity has constructive notice of a dangerous condition, the jury may consider whether “the condition and its dangerous character would have been discovered by an inspection system that was reasonably…”
Anderson v. City of Thousand Oaks, 65 Cal. App. 3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).
“” (Gov. Code, § 835.2, subd. (b).) It is undisputed that the new roadway existed without a speed zone from the time it was first opened to traffic until the accident occurred approximately six weeks later.”
Levine v. City of Los Angeles, 68 Cal. App. 3d 481 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977).
“” (Gov. Code, § 835.2, subd. (b).) Here there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion of the trier of fact that city had constructive notice of the dangerous condition of the intersection.”
Erfurt v. State of California, 141 Cal. App. 3d 837 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).
“The relevant part reads: “A public entity had constructive notice of a dangerous condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 only if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the…”
Curreri v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 262 Cal. App. 2d 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968).
“Code, § 835) (1) that the City permitted a dangerous condition to exist; (2) that the dangerous condition proximately contributed to *614 plaintiff’s injuries; (3) that the risk to those lawfully using the sidewalk and adjoining property were foreseeable, and (4) that the City…”
Strongman v. Cnty. of Kern, 255 Cal. App. 2d 308 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967).
“” (Gov. Code, § 835.2, subd. (b).) The judgment is affirmed.”
O'Gan v. King City Jt. Union High Sch. Dist., 3 Cal. App. 3d 641 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).
“(Gov. Code, § 835.2.) The evidence included school board minutes which showed that the district employed an architect to draw the plans and supervise the construction of the Fine Arts Building.”
Liss v. City of San Diego CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “(Gov. Code, § 835.2, subd. (a).) A public entity has constructive notice of a dangerous condition if the condition exists long enough and is obvious enough that, in the exercise of due care, the entity should have discovered the condition’s dangerous character.”
Shamiryan v. City of Glendale CA2/7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “” (Gov. Code, § 835.2, subd. (a).) The entity has constructive notice “only if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the…”
Wickander v. Cal. Dept. of Transp. CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “) A public entity had constructive notice of a dangerous condition “only if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the…”
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.