California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 835 (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 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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 212 cases (61 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987). · cites it 4× “The first alleged that the defendants were liable under Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 835 (West 1980) [1] for dangerous conditions on their upstream properties that contributed to the flooding of Lutherglen.”

Zelig v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 45 P.3d 1171 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “” (Gov. Code, § 835.) Government Code section 830 defines a dangerous condition as “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…”

Constance B. v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp., 178 Cal. App. 3d 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “" (Gov. Code, § 835.) "`Dangerous condition' means 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…”

Day v. City of Fontana, 19 P.3d 1196 (Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “[1] Government Code section 835 provides, in pertinent part, that "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…”

McCarty v. Dep't of Transp., 73 Cal. Comp. Cases 1036 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “4); and (3) liability for a dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code, § 835). He went on to allege another cause of action against Caltrans for premises liability (a form of negligence), and yet another cause of action against Caltrans under the Government Claims Act.”

Metcalf v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 176 P.3d 382 (Cal. 2008). · cites it 2× “Government Code section 835, part of California's Government Claims Act, [1] generally provides that "a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes" various circumstances, including "that the property was in a…”

Anderson v. City of Thousand Oaks, 65 Cal. App. 3d 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 5× “6); (2) lack of actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition, inasmuch as the road was only recently built and was adequately inspected both in design and construction (Gov. Code, §§ 835, 835.2); and (3) sign placement immunity, where the failure to provide…”

Arreola v. Cnty. of Monterey, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “Code, § 3479; Gov. Code, § 835.) State argues that it cannot be liable for these torts because it does not have a duty to protect plaintiffs’ property from the failure of a flood control project over which it had no control.”

Stone v. State of California, 106 Cal. App. 3d 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “(Gov. Code, § 835.) They claim that a "governmental entity in possession of and operating property open to the public for business purposes has a duty to restrain the dangerous conduct of third persons or if the dangerous conduct of third persons cannot be adequately controlled…”

Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Prot. Dist., 444 P.3d 688 (Cal. 2019). “Code, § 815, subd. (b).) Government Code section 850.”

Cerna v. City of Oakland, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 168 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” (Gov. Code, § 835.) The element at issue here is the existence of a dangerous condition.”

Mixon v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 207 Cal. App. 4th 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs sued the State upon allegations that it maintained the street intersection in a dangerous condition (Gov. Code, § 835), and faulted the lighting configuration, lack of traffic control signals and signs, placement of signs, the type of crosswalk markings, and the grade…”

Show all 212 citing cases →

— Cal. Government Code § 835(b) — 1 case

Araujo v. Coachella Valley Water Dist. (S.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.