When you are injured on private property, the path to compensation is generally straightforward. When that injury occurs on public property, the rules change entirely.
In California, sovereign immunity principles mean the government generally cannot be sued unless strict statutory requirements are met. You are not just fighting a negligence claim, but instead are dealing with the California Government Claims Act.
At Crown & Stone Law, P.C., we understand that winning these cases requires more than just legal knowledge, it requires a forensic approach to evidence. We dismantle the government’s defenses before they are even raised.
Key Takeaways
- Public property injury claims in California follow strict Government Claims Act rules and missing the 180 day filing deadline can eliminate your case
- Winning hinges on evidence that proves a dangerous condition and government responsibility through correct agency identification and records showing the defect existed long enough for notice
- Common defenses like trivial defect and design or trail immunity can be beaten by documenting the full conditions of the hazard and tightly linking the injury mechanics to the defect
The 180-Day Statutory Cliff: Why “Wait and See” is Fatal
The most critical factor in a government liability claim is not the severity of your injury, but the timeline. Unlike standard personal injury cases that often have a two-year statute of limitations, claims against government entities in California operate on a strictly compressed schedule.
Under the Government Claims Act, you must file a formal administrative claim within 6 months (180 days) of the incident.
This is not a lawsuit. It is a mandatory prerequisite notice that alerts the entity of your intent to sue. If you miss this deadline, you are generally barred from recovering damages, regardless of how severe your injuries are or how negligent the city was.
The “Agency Trap”
A common pitfall is filing with the wrong entity. A sidewalk might look like it belongs to the City of Los Angeles, but if it sits on an overpass, it might be under the jurisdiction of Caltrans (State of California) or the County.
Filing against the City when the State is liable does not pause the clock. Our initial investigation focuses on jurisdictional mapping to make sure the right claim reaches the right agency immediately.
Defining a “Dangerous Condition”
To succeed, we must prove the injury resulted from a “dangerous condition of public property.” This is the “Golden Thread” of public liability. We must demonstrate that the property created a substantial risk of injury when used with due care.
Furthermore, we must prove one of two things:
- Negligent Creation: A government employee created the dangerous condition through a negligent or wrongful act.
- Notice: The entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition long enough to have protected against it.
The Power of Constructive Notice
Rarely will a city admit, “Yes, we knew that hole was there.” We build cases on Constructive Notice.
By utilizing the California Public Records Act (CPRA), we audit maintenance logs, prior complaints, and inspection records. If we can prove the defect existed for a significant period, meaning the city should have known about it, we satisfy the statutory requirement.
Understanding the <¾ Inch Rule
When you approach a firm to evaluate your claim, one of the first things we analyze is the physical dimension of the defect. Government entities frequently use the “Trivial Defect” doctrine to dismiss cases.
California courts have often held that sidewalk defects (like a lip or crack) measuring less than ¾ of an inch are “trivial” as a matter of law, meaning they are not considered dangerous conditions.
However, this is not an absolute bar. We defeat the trivial defect defense by looking at the totality of circumstances:
- Lighting conditions: Was the defect hidden by shadows or poor streetlights?
- Debris: Was the crack obscured by leaves or sand?
- History of accidents: Have others tripped in this exact spot?
- Jagged edges: Is the defect a clean break or a jagged, entrapment hazard?
How We Beat the “Design” Defense
Even if a condition is dangerous, the government has powerful “immunities” they use as shields. The two most common are Design Immunity and Trail Immunity.
Design Immunity
The government will argue that the road or building was built according to an approved plan, and therefore they are immune from liability. To strip this immunity, we look for “Changed Physical Conditions.”
For example, if a road was designed safely in 1990, but traffic patterns have increased by 400% since then, the original design is no longer reasonable. The immunity expires when the condition of the property no longer matches the safety parameters of the original plan.
Trail Immunity
This immunity protects entities from liability for injuries on unpaved roads and trails used for recreation. While difficult to overcome, exceptions exist. If the injury was caused by a man-made structure unrelated to the trail’s design (like a hidden trench dug for maintenance), immunity may not apply.
Medical-Legal Mapping By Linking Injury to Liability
A successful claim connects the specific medical diagnosis to the physics of the hazard. We move beyond generic terms like “slip and fall” to specific medical-legal mapping.
Lisfranc and Ligament Injuries
A Lisfranc injury (midfoot fracture/dislocation) often occurs when the foot is plantarflexed and trapped while the body rotates. This is a specific indicator of an entrapment hazard, such as a hole in a sidewalk or a gap in stadium stairs, rather than a simple trip.
We use this medical evidence to prove the defect was substantial enough to trap the foot, countering the “trivial defect” argument.
Hamstring and Soft Tissue Tears
Severe hamstring avulsions or tears often result from the sudden, violent hyperextension of the leg trying to regain balance on a slippery surface. Proving the severity of the slip mechanics through medical testimony helps establish that the floor material (e.g., in a government building) lacked the required coefficient of friction.
Clavicle (Collarbone) Fractures
These are common in bicycle accidents caused by road defects. In cases involving bike lanes, proving a “dangerous condition” often involves analyzing the road surface regarding reasonable care for cyclists, not just cars.
The Next Step: A Forensic Evaluation
If you or a loved one has been injured on public property, you are on a strict timeline. The government is already building its defense, you need to start building your case.
At Crown & Stone Law, we engineer strategies to overcome the unique hurdles of government liability. We invite you to a consultation where we can review the specific geography of your accident and the medical details of your injury to determine the viable path forward.
Do not let the 180-day clock run out on your right to justice.
