Government Code 830 appellate California decisions consistently return to the same statutory language, because the definition of a dangerous condition is where most appeals against public entities are actually won or lost. Understanding how appellate courts have applied and refined this definition is essential for any attorney litigating a section 835 claim against the state or a local public entity.
830
Government Code section defining a dangerous condition of public property
830.2
Section allowing a court to find a defect trivial as a matter of law
Government Code section 830 defines a dangerous condition as a condition of property that creates a substantial, as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant, risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used. Appellate courts have consistently held that this is a two-part inquiry: first, whether the risk of injury is substantial rather than trivial, and second, whether the manner of use that created the risk was itself reasonably foreseeable. The reasonably foreseeable use prong is frequently where appellate decisions diverge from trial court intuitions. A condition that seems obviously safe for its intended use can still be dangerous if a foreseeable, though not necessarily intended, use of the property creates the risk, such as pedestrians walking along a roadway shoulder that was never designed as a walkway but is regularly used that way.
Government Code section 830.2 allows a court to determine, as a matter of law, that a condition was too trivial to support liability, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Appellate courts reviewing a trial court's trivial defect determination generally examine several non-exclusive factors: the size and nature of the defect, the lighting and visibility conditions at the time of the incident, whether the defect had a history of causing other injuries, and whether there were any aggravating circumstances that increased the danger beyond what the physical dimensions of the defect alone would suggest. This is a fact-intensive inquiry that appellate courts are sometimes willing to resolve differently than the trial court, particularly where the trial record includes evidence of aggravating circumstances the trial court did not adequately weigh, such as poor lighting, high foot traffic, or a documented history of near-miss incidents at the same location.
Decisions applying section 830 frequently turn on whether the injured person's use of the property was one a public entity should reasonably have anticipated. A pedestrian walking on a road shoulder because no sidewalk exists is using the property in a reasonably foreseeable manner, because the absence of an alternative made that use foreseeable and, in practical terms, unavoidable.
Whether the use was reasonably foreseeable is distinct from asking whether the specific plaintiff behaved carelessly. A foreseeable, though not originally intended, use can still support a dangerous condition finding even where a defendant argues the plaintiff should have acted differently.
A finding that a condition is dangerous under section 830 does not end the inquiry if the public entity raises design immunity under Government Code section 830.6. A dangerous condition finding and a valid design immunity defense can coexist, with immunity controlling unless the plaintiff shows changed physical conditions that eliminated its continuing protection.
The section 830 definition, the trivial defect doctrine, and design immunity each operate on a distinct standard, and appellate outcomes depend on how the trial record addressed each one.
The case behind this page
A closer look at the appeal, the six-month claim deadline, and the state's defenses in one matter.
Read the related matterBuilding the record
How trial counsel keeps the dangerous-condition evidence reviewable when the public entity appeals.
How the record is preservedRelated breakdowns from this appellate matter and our state-liability practice.
We take and defend section 835 dangerous-condition cases through appeal as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees.
Refer a caseA dangerous condition is a condition of property that creates a substantial, rather than minor or trivial, risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.
Yes, under Government Code section 830.2, a court can determine as a matter of law that a defect was trivial, even viewing the evidence favorably to the plaintiff, based on factors like size, visibility, and prior incident history.
Design immunity under Government Code section 830.6 is a separate affirmative defense that can defeat liability even where a condition meets the section 830 definition of dangerous, unless the plaintiff shows changed conditions eliminated the immunity's protection.
