question of governmental immunity in California

1985(See Kisbey v. State of California (1984) 36 Cal.3d 415, 418, fn. 3 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 428 , 682 P.2d 1093 ] [expedience dictates that we discuss only the question of governmental immunity, rather than whether there was a cause of action stated].) Government Code section 850.2 provides: “Neither a public entity that has undertaken to provide fire protection service, nor an employee of such a public entity, is liable for any injury resulting from the failure to provide or maintain sufficient personnel, equipment or other fire protection facilities.” Government Code section 850.4 provides: “Neither

1985(See Kisbey v. State of California (1984) 36 Cal.3d 415, 418, fn. 3 [ 204 Cal.Rptr. 428 , 682 P.2d 1093 ] [expedience dictates that we discuss only the question of governmental immunity, rather than whether there was a cause of action stated].) Government Code section 850.2 provides: “Neither a public entity that has undertaken to provide fire protection service, nor an employee of such a public entity, is liable for any injury resulting from the failure to provide or maintain sufficient personnel, equipment or other fire protection facilities.” Government Code section 850.4 provides: “Neither

2013(See Kisbey v. State of California (1984) 36 Cal.3d 415, 418, fn. 3 ; Lainer Investments v. Department of Water & Power (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1, 7 (Lainer).) A. The County and the OCFA Were Statutorily Immune from Liability. ―‗Except as otherwise provided by statute,‘ 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 6 employee or any other person.‘ (Gov.

1998“Conceptually the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 201-202 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P.2d 894 ]; see also Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 630 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 , 957 P.2d 1323 ] [“Analytically, although the issues are somewhat related, the question of possible statutory liability for breach of a mandatory duty ordinarily

1998“Conceptually the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 201-202 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P.2d 894 ]; see also Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 630 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 , 957 P.2d 1323 ] [“Analytically, although the issues are somewhat related, the question of possible statutory liability for breach of a mandatory duty ordinarily

1998“Conceptually the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 201-202 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P.2d 894 ]; see also Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 630 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 , 957 P.2d 1323 ] [“Analytically, although the issues are somewhat related, the question of possible statutory liability for breach of a mandatory duty ordinarily

1998“Conceptually the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 201-202 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P.2d 894 ]; see also Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 630 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 , 957 P.2d 1323 ] [“Analytically, although the issues are somewhat related, the question of possible statutory liability for breach of a mandatory duty ordinarily

1998“Conceptually the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 201-202 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P.2d 894 ]; see also Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 630 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 , 957 P.2d 1323 ] [“Analytically, although the issues are somewhat related, the question of possible statutory liability for breach of a mandatory duty ordinarily

1998“Conceptually the question of the applicability of a statutory immunity does not even arise until it is determined that a defendant otherwise owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 201-202 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 , 649 P.2d 894 ]; see also Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 630 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489 , 957 P.2d 1323 ] [“Analytically, although the issues are somewhat related, the question of possible statutory liability for breach of a mandatory duty ordinarily

1998At the threshold, it must be established that the public entity owed an affirmative duty of care under the circumstances and that there was a statutory basis for liability. "`[I]n California, all government tort liability must be based on statute.'" ( Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at p. 716 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 823 , italics in Rodriguez; Gov.Code, § 815 ["Except as otherwise provided by statute: [¶] [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity...."].) Only if these points are answered in

1998At the threshold, it must be established that the public entity owed an affirmative duty of care under the circumstances and that there was a statutory basis for liability. "`[I]n California, all government tort liability must be based on statute.'" ( Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School Dist, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at p. 716 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 823 , italics in Rodriguez; Gov.Code, § 815 ["Except as otherwise provided by statute: [¶] [a] public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity...."].) Only if these points are answered in

1979Code, § 810 et seq.) Under that act, the inquiry would be whether the conduct here alleged involved “basic policy decisions.” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 445 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 551 P.2d 334 , 83 A.L.R.3d 1166 ]; Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 793 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 ].) Before the question of governmental immunity can arise, a more fundamental issue needs first to be faced: Is there any liability for damages under the circumstances before us, in the absence of governmental immunity?

1979Code, § 810 et seq.) Under that act, the inquiry would be whether the conduct here alleged involved “basic policy decisions.” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 445 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 551 P.2d 334 , 83 A.L.R.3d 1166 ]; Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 793 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 ].) Before the question of governmental immunity can arise, a more fundamental issue needs first to be faced: Is there any liability for damages under the circumstances before us, in the absence of governmental immunity?

1979Code, § 810 et seq.) Under that act, the inquiry would be whether the conduct here alleged involved “basic policy decisions.” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 445 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 551 P.2d 334 , 83 A.L.R.3d 1166 ]; Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 793 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 ].) Before the question of governmental immunity can arise, a more fundamental issue needs first to be faced: Is there any liability for damages under the circumstances before us, in the absence of governmental immunity?

1979Code, § 810 et seq.) Under that act, the inquiry would be whether the conduct here alleged involved “basic policy decisions.” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 445 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 551 P.2d 334 , 83 A.L.R.3d 1166 ]; Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 793 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 ].) Before the question of governmental immunity can arise, a more fundamental issue needs first to be faced: Is there any liability for damages under the circumstances before us, in the absence of governmental immunity?