Suing Public Entities: Key Considerations

What type of duty do schools claim they are not required to fulfill in bullying cases?

What can lead to governmental immunity in bullying cases?

What is a common characteristic of premises liability cases against public entities?

What is a significant obstacle in pursuing government cases?

What should be considered when choosing cases related to public entities for premises liability?

What must be demonstrated when using the totality of the circumstances test regarding a trivial defect?

What does the trivial defect doctrine state?

What is the implication of the 'open and obvious' doctrine for property owners?

When can a public information request be made regarding a defective condition?

What condition must be shown for homeowners to be liable for sidewalk conditions caused by their property?

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.

This quiz covers essential aspects of suing public entities, focusing on liability in bullying cases and the concept of governmental immunity. It also explores the importance of safety plans and the various causes of action that can be pursued beyond negligence. Understanding these legal intricacies is crucial for effective litigation in such cases.