Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Government Entity Immunity

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Affirming a summary judgment, this opinion finds that the city was immune from liability under Gov. Code 831.4 on plaintiff's claim that he tripped over a wire cable hanging between two posts on either side of the entrance to a path down to a lake, designed to keep vehicles from using the path.  The path was used for the recreational… Read More

Diving into water is a hazardous recreational activity if done (a) from other than a diving board or diving platform, or (b) at any place or from any structure where diving is prohibited if warning of the prohibition is given.  Government entities are immune from liability for injury suffered from engaging in such activities under Gov. Code 831.7.  This decision… Read More

Plaintiff was injured while riding an off-road motorcycle in an unpaved and unoccupied area of the desert, where defendant maintained a wildlife preserve which it surrounded by a cable fence to stop illegal dumping and off-road vehicles from disturbing the fragile habitat.  Plaintiff ran into the fence.  Held, defendant is immune from liability under Gov. Code 831.7, which immunizes public… Read More

This decision holds that Gov. Code 821.6 immunizes governmental entities and employees only from tort claims that allege damage resulting from the initiation or prosecution of official judicial proceedings, not injury from preparatory work such as investigation.  Other immunity provisions may apply to immunize the investigatory work, but section 821.6 does not. Read More

Gov. Code 818 immunizes governmental agencies from liability for damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.  This decision holds that section 818 bars a claim for treble damages under CCP 340.1(b) for a childhood sexual assault resulting from the defendant's concerted effort to hide evidence relating to such assaults.  Section 340.1 imposes… Read More

A government agency cannot be held liable for inverse condemnation by reason of erosion caused by inadequate storm drainage facilities unless the agency owns those facilities.  Here, as a condition of approving subdivision maps, defendant county required the developers of two subdivisions along a creek to build storm drainage facilities in the creek adjoining the subdivisions.  The county also required… Read More

Gov. Code 855.4 grants public entities and employees immunity from liability for injuries caused by discretionary decisions about protecting public health.  This decision follows s Wright v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 683 and City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 129 in holding that this provision is not governed by the same requirements as… Read More

Gov. Code 844.6 grants state agencies immunity from liability for injury caused by a prisoner.  This decision holds that the statute applies to bar plaintiffs' FEHA claims that the Department failed to properly shield them from sexual harassment by prison inmates whom they, as Department employees, were assigned to treat.  The prisoners proximately caused plaintiffs' harm even if the Department's… Read More

Following Johnson v. Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 729, this decision holds that Labor Code wage and hour provisions do not apply to governmental entities.  Here, the San Diego Convention Center Corp. was a governmental agrency established by the City of San Diego to manage its convention center.  Accordingly, the plaintiff ex-employee could not prevail on meal and… Read More

Plaintiff's decedent was killed in a high speed police chase.  The City claimed immunity under Veh. Code 17004.  However, this decision holds that to obtain that immunity, the City must prove that it provided its police officers vehicle pursuit policy training with the characteristics required by 11 Cal. Code Regs. 1081 including annual mandatory one-hour training sessions.  The City didn't… Read More

Langford, a CHP officer, killed Silva's son while speeding to respond to an emergency call.  Langford was statutorily immune from liability under Vehicle Code 17004, but the CHP was not.  Gov. Code 815.2(b) immunizes a government entity when its employee is immune except as "otherwise provided by law."  Vehicle Code 17001 otherwise provides, making an entity liable for death or… Read More

Plaintiff's complaint alleged a viable Sherman Act section 1 antitrust conspiracy among dentist members of the Dental Board of California to harass and intimidate plaintiff which sought to engage in a disruptive new direct to consumer model of marketing clear dental aligners to members of the public.  The members of the dental board were not immune from antitrust liability merely… Read More

Gov. Code 855.6 immunizes government employees from liability for failure to make or failure to make adequate physical or mental exams of other persons for the purpose of detecting disease or physical or mental state that would pose a danger to others.  This decision holds that the immunity applies to al government employees, not health professionals only.  However, it also… Read More

Plaintiff owner of a gated residential community sued defendant, a private water company, for repeated failures of a 12-inch water main that defendant constructed at plaintiff's request to serve two fire hydrants in the development as well as the domestic water needs of the residents.  This decision affirms the defense judgment.  The inverse condemnation claim failed because the water main… Read More

Under Gov. Code 44808, a school district is immune from liability for injuries students suffer while not on school property, except if the district has undertaken to transport the student to and from school or has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off premises.  Here, due to bullying by other students during the school year, which the district allegedly took insufficient steps… Read More

1 2