California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

1112. Affirmative Defense—Reasonable Act or Omission to Correct (Gov. Code, § 835.4(b))

Download PDF
1112.Affirmative Defense—Reasonable Act or Omission to
Correct (Gov. Code, § 835.4(b))
A public entity is not responsible for harm caused by a dangerous
condition if its failure to take sufficient steps to protect against the risk
of injury was reasonable. If [name of defendant] proves that its conduct
was reasonable, then your verdict must be for [name of defendant].
In determining whether [name of defendant]’s conduct was reasonable,
you must consider how much time and opportunity it had to take
action. You must also weigh the likelihood and the seriousness of the
potential injury against the practicality and cost of protecting against
the risk of injury.
New September 2003; Revised April 2007, April 2008
Directions for Use
This instruction states a defense to the theory that the entity had notice of a
dangerous condition (that it did not create) and failed to take adequate protective
measures. (Gov. Code, §§ 835(b), 835.4(b).)
Sources and Authority
• No Public Entity Liability for Reasonable Act or Omission. Government Code
section 835.4(b).
• “There are, of course, affirmative defenses pleaded which may require trial as
well: such as . . . the special defense under Government Code, section 835.4 of
the reasonableness, practicability, and cost of the alternative measures plaintiffs
claim should have been taken to protect against a dangerous condition.” (Hibbs
v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 166, 172 [60
Cal.Rptr. 364].)
• “Under section 835.4, subdivision (b), however, the question of the
reasonableness of the state’s action in light of the practicability and cost of the
applicable safeguards is a matter for the jury’s determination.” (Ducey v. Argo
Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 720 [159 Cal.Rptr. 835, 602 P.2d 755],
footnote omitted.)
• “Unlike section 830.6 relating to design immunity, section 835.4 subdivision
(b), does not provide that the reasonableness of the action taken shall be
determined by the ‘trial or appellate court.’ ” (De La Rosa v. City of San
Bernardino (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 739, 749 [94 Cal.Rptr. 175].)
• “The reasonableness standard referred to in section 835.4 differs from the
reasonableness standard that applies under sections 830 and 835 and ordinary
tort principles. Under the latter principles, the reasonableness of the defendant’s
conduct does not depend upon the existence of other, conflicting claims on the
645
0021
defendant’s resources or the political barriers to acting in a reasonable manner.
But, as the California Law Revision Commission recognized, public entities
may also defend against liability on the basis that, because of financial or
political constraints, the public entity may not be able to accomplish what
reasonably would be expected of a private entity.” (Metcalf v. County of San
Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1138 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 382, 176 P.3d 654].)
Secondary Sources
5 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 272
2California Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed.)
§§ 12.63–12.65
5 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 61, Particular Liabilities and Immunities of
Public Entities and Public Employees, § 61.03 (Matthew Bender)
40 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 464, Public Entities and
Offıcers: California Government Claims Act, § 464.86 (Matthew Bender)
19A California Points and Authorities, Ch. 196, Public Entities, §§ 196.12, 196.300
(Matthew Bender)
1113–1119. Reserved for Future Use
CACI No. 1112 DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
646
0022