Suing Public Entities: Key Considerations

Study Notes

Suing Public Entities: Key Considerations

Most bullying cases involve emotional rather than physical harm. School liability often hinges on whether a duty to investigate existed (mandatory vs. discretionary).
Public entities often claim immunity, especially when a mandatory duty isn't established. This immunity applies to actions within the scope of employment.
To overcome immunity arguments, consider additional causes of action beyond negligence.
Safety plans (earthquake, school shootings, etc.) may be relevant in establishing liability. Vicarious liability can extend to employees (e.g., school nurse).
Government Code 840 applies to employee liability concerning dangerous conditions (e.g., sidewalks); include relevant employees in government claims.
In sexual abuse cases, cooperation with prosecutors is crucial.
Government cases are generally expensive, necessitating expert witnesses.
The "trivial defect doctrine" (Gov. Code 830.2) limits liability for minor defects. The 2019 case clarified the definition of "trivial," emphasizing the "totality of the circumstances."
Factors influencing "trivial defect" determination include lighting, obstructions (trees, leaves), and the overall condition of the area. A one-inch defect might still be considered dangerous depending on these factors.
"Open and obvious" dangers don't eliminate a property owner's duty to maintain a safe premises; it only removes the duty to warn.
Plaintiffs must address comparative negligence. Consult CACI instructions critically, avoiding overreliance on defense arguments. Independent research is vital.
Public records requests are only permissible before litigation commences.
Government entities require actual or constructive notice of dangerous conditions. Homeowners bear responsibility for conditions on their property that foreseeably harm adjacent public areas.