California Government Code 835 is the statute that allows an injured person to sue a city, county, state agency, or other public entity when a dangerous condition on government-owned property causes the injury. To win, you have to prove four things together: the property was in a dangerous condition when you were hurt, that condition directly caused your injury, the kind of injury you suffered was a reasonably foreseeable result of the hazard, and either a government employee created the hazard on the job or the entity had notice of it with enough time to act.1California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 835 – Liability of Public Entities You also have to file an administrative claim with the entity within six months before you can set foot in court.
The Four Elements You Must Prove
All four elements must coexist. If any one fails, the claim fails with it.
First, the property had to be in a dangerous condition at the time of your injury. Not before, not after. The hazard had to exist at the moment you were hurt.
Second, that dangerous condition must have been the proximate cause of your injury. If you would have been hurt anyway, the causal link is missing.
Third, the kind of injury you suffered has to have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the condition. A raised sidewalk panel foreseeably causes a trip and fall. An unusual chain of events that happens to involve the defect may not qualify.
Fourth, you have to tie the condition back to the public entity in one of two ways. Either a government employee created the hazard through a negligent act or omission while acting within the scope of employment, or the entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition long enough before the injury to have taken protective measures.1California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 835 – Liability of Public Entities These are subsections (a) and (b) of the statute, and most cases rise or fall on which path you can prove.
What Qualifies as a Dangerous Condition
Government Code 830 defines a dangerous condition as a property defect that creates a substantial risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.2California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 830 – Dangerous Conditions of Public Property The word “substantial” matters. Minor, trivial, or insignificant defects do not qualify. A hairline crack in a sidewalk will not get you there. A three-inch lip between sidewalk panels very well might.
California courts do not use a fixed measurement. There is no magic number of inches. Judges and juries look at the whole picture: the size, shape, and location of the defect, the lighting and visibility, whether debris or shadow concealed it, and the kind and volume of foot or vehicle traffic the area sees. A modest height difference in a dim, busy pedestrian corridor can be dangerous. A larger defect in good light with clear warning signs may not be.
The “due care” piece is just as important. The statute only protects people using the property with reasonable caution in a way the entity should expect. Use the property recklessly or in an unusual way, and the condition that hurt you may not legally qualify as dangerous at all.
Proving the Government’s Role
Employee-Created Hazards Under Section 835(a)
Section 835(a) imposes liability when a public employee’s negligent act or omission within the scope of employment creates the dangerous condition.1California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 835 – Liability of Public Entities A city maintenance worker who patches a road and leaves it uneven, or a parks employee who removes a handrail without replacing it, both fit. The employee has to have been doing job-related work when the hazard was created. A city worker who damages something while running a personal weekend errand is a different matter.
This path is often easier to prove than notice because you do not have to show the entity knew about the hazard. You only have to connect the employee’s on-the-job conduct to the condition that hurt you.
Actual Notice Under Section 835(b)
Actual notice means the entity knew the condition existed and knew or should have known it was dangerous.3California Legislative Information. California Code Government Code 835.2 – Actual or Constructive Notice A resident calls the city to report a broken stair railing, the complaint is logged, and nothing is done for weeks. That logged complaint is strong evidence of actual notice. Prior incident reports, internal maintenance requests, and work orders that were opened but never completed all do similar work.
Constructive Notice
Constructive notice applies when the entity did not actually know about the hazard but should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. You have to show the condition existed long enough and was obvious enough that a diligent inspection system would have found it.3California Legislative Information. California Code Government Code 835.2 – Actual or Constructive Notice Courts weigh whether the entity maintained a reasonable inspection system, balancing the cost of inspections against the severity and likelihood of the harm.
This is where many claims live or die. A pothole that formed overnight and injured someone the next morning is almost impossible to pin on constructive notice. A pothole that spent six months growing on a busy street the city inspects quarterly is a much better case. Proving it usually takes evidence about inspection schedules, maintenance logs, and the age or progression of the defect.
Under either kind of notice, the entity must have had enough time after learning of the hazard (or after it should have learned) to take protective action. A tree that falls on a public path and injures someone five minutes later gives the entity no meaningful opportunity to respond.
Defenses the Entity Will Raise
Reasonable Conduct
Government Code 835.4 lets a public entity escape liability by showing its conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. For employee-created hazards, the entity must show the act or omission was reasonable when weighed against the likelihood and severity of possible injuries and the cost of safer alternatives. For notice-based claims, the entity can show that its response (or decision not to act) was reasonable given the time it had and the cost of fixing the problem.4California Legislative Information. California Government Code 835.4 The defense is essentially a cost-benefit argument. A city that knew about a minor sidewalk defect but prioritized a failing bridge can argue it allocated resources reasonably.
Design Immunity
Government Code 830.6 gives public entities a powerful shield called design immunity. If a public improvement was built according to a design or plan approved in advance by the entity’s legislative body or an authorized official, and a court finds substantial evidence that a reasonable public employee could have approved it, the entity is not liable for injuries caused by that design.5California Legislative Information. California Government Code 830.6
The immunity is not permanent. If conditions change and the original design no longer meets safety standards, immunity continues only for a reasonable period while the entity secures funding and does the remedial work. Where repair is not practical, the immunity survives only as long as the entity provides adequate warnings about the hazard. An entity that ignores a known design problem without either fixing it or warning about it eventually loses this defense.
Comparative Fault
California follows pure comparative fault, so your own carelessness reduces your award but does not erase it.6Justia Law. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. A jury that finds you 30 percent at fault and the entity 70 percent at fault awards you 70 percent of your damages. Public entities push comparative fault hard. If you were looking at your phone while walking on a broken sidewalk, expect them to assign you a significant share of the blame. Wrong footwear in a visibly wet area, ignoring barriers or warning signs, and unusual use of the property all give the entity ammunition.
The Six-Month Claim You Must File First
Before you can sue a public entity in California, you must present an administrative claim to the entity itself. This step is not optional. Skip it or botch it, and the courthouse door is closed.
For personal injury and property damage, the claim has to be filed within six months after the cause of action accrues, which typically means six months from the date of the injury.7California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 911.2 – Presentation and Consideration of Claims That is much shorter than the ordinary statute of limitations for personal injury in California, and people who do not know about it often learn too late.
Government Code 910 requires the claim to include your name and mailing address, the date and location of the incident, a general description of the injury or loss, and the dollar amount claimed (or a statement that the amount exceeds $10,000 if you plan to file in superior court).8California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 910 – Presentation of Claims Most counties and state departments post their forms online. Build a supporting file before you submit: photos of the hazard from multiple angles with something in the frame for scale, witness names and contact information, and all medical records and bills tied to your treatment.
Government Code 915 sets out how to deliver the claim. For local public entities, deliver it to the clerk, secretary, or auditor, or mail it to the governing body at its principal office. Claims against the state generally go to the Department of General Services, and claims against a court or the California State University system have their own designated recipients.9California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 915 – Presentation of Claims Keep proof of delivery. Certified mail with a return receipt is the most reliable option; if you hand-deliver, get a date-stamped copy.
Miss the six-month window and you can apply for leave to present a late claim under Government Code 911.4. The application has to be filed within a reasonable time, and in no event later than one year after the cause of action accrued. You must explain why the claim was not timely and attach the proposed claim.10California Legislative Information. California Code GOV 911.4 – Late Claim Applications The entity can grant or deny the request, and denials are common. After one year, this option is gone for good.
After the Entity Responds
The public entity has 45 days to act on your claim after it is presented. If it does nothing within that window, your claim is deemed rejected on the last day.11California Legislative Information. California Code Government Code 912.4 – Time for Board Action You and the entity can agree in writing to extend the period, but any extension has to be in place before the deadline passes.
Once your claim is rejected, a new clock starts. If the entity sends you a written rejection notice, you have six months from the date the notice is personally delivered or mailed to file suit.12California Legislative Information. California Government Code 945.6 If no formal rejection notice is ever sent (including when the claim is deemed rejected by silence), you have two years from the date the cause of action accrued to file. That two-year window sounds generous, but six months of waiting plus 45 days of silence eats a real chunk of it.
What You Can Recover
A successful claim under Government Code 835 recovers both economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages cover medical expenses, lost wages and future earning capacity, rehabilitation costs, and other out-of-pocket losses. Non-economic damages cover pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. California does not impose a statutory cap on non-economic damages in dangerous-condition claims against public entities, so recovery turns on the severity of the injury and the strength of the evidence.
Punitive damages are generally not available against public entities in California. The Tort Claims Act shields government bodies from punitive awards, so your recovery is limited to compensation for what you actually lost and suffered.