Bay Bridge S-Curve – Government Entity Liability

San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Jaxon Van Derbeken wrote about the problems with the Bay Bridge S-Curve in the October 15th Chronicle. Officer Shawn Chase, a CHP spokesman said “Wednesday’s traffic fiasco was just the latest indication that the S-curve has become a safety problem”. As of Sunday, the Highway Patrol had logged 20 accidents eastbound on the curve and eight westbound since it opened.

Question: When is the State of California liable for a dangerous condition of public property like the Bay Bridge S-Curve?

Answer: A public entity is liable for a dangerous condition of property, like the Bay Bridge S-Curve, as defined in Gov. Code Sec. 830 if that dangerous condition was the cause of injury and the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the injury that actually occurred. Govt. Code Sec. 835. An injured person must also prove that the public entity either negligently created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in time to remedy it. Govt. Code section 835(a) and 835(b).

Government Code section 835, part of California’s Government Claims Act, 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 dangerous condition at the time of the injury,” and “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.” Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin, (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121,1126

Generally a public entity may escape being held liable for a dangerous condition on its property unless an injured plaintiff can establish either negligence or notice of the dangerous condition.

Also, under certain circumstances, the Government Code provides immunity to a public entity for an injury that resulted from the faulty design or construction of public property. Govt. Code section 830.6. For a public entity to establish a defense of “Design Immunity” Cal Trans or the State of California would have the burden of satisfying three elements: 1) A causal relationship between the design and the accident, 2) Discretionary approval of the design, and 3) Substantial evidence showing the reasonableness of the design, see the California Supreme Court case of Cornette v. Dept. of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 66. The rationale for “Design Immunity” is to prevent a jury from second-guessing the decisions made by a public entity.

Here, with the Bay Bridge S-Curve it appears that the State of California and Cal Trans are on notice of a dangerous condition. The State’s own highway patrol officers are saying Wednesday’s Safeway Truck accident was just the latest indication that the S-curve has become a safety problem. However, if the State of California has substantial evidence showing the reasonableness of the design and that the design itself as approved by a government body was what was actually built, the State of California may have a defense to any personal injury cases caused by the Dangerous Bay Bridge S-Curve. More facts regarding how the S-Curve design was presented to the government agency that approved it, if any, and whether or not the design as originally contemplated is what was actually build.

The bottom line is be careful when traveling over the Bay Bridge, the driver next to you may have no idea they are traveling on a bridge shaped like a snake.