OMLO Partner Tania Ochoa recently published the article, “Back to the Basics: Preserving Evidentiary Principles in Negligence Claims Against Public Entities” in the National Law Review.
Drawing on her litigation experience, Tania highlights how trial and appellate courts are increasingly scrutinizing negligence claims against public entities at summary judgment, particularly where liability hinges on whether the government had notice of a dangerous condition or individual. The trend can be seen in two distinct areas of law: dangerous condition of public property and liability for childhood sexual abuse cases.
With regard to liability in dangerous condition of public property, Tania references cases such as Edwin Sargenti v. City of Long Beach, which held that evidence must be admissible at the summary judgment stage, in a case that featured a plaintiff injured while transitioning from the sidewalk to the roadway on an e-scooter. In that case, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment, on other grounds denied by the trial court, by determining the inadmissibility of a Google Street View screenshot which allegedly showed that an asphalt patch existed 5 years before the incident to create a triable issue of fact as to notice against the City.
Tania notes that in childhood sexual abuse cases facing school districts, which have become more common in California due to the passage of AB 218 in 2019, constructive notice evidence, or the should-have-known standard, “must be admissible and must also demonstrate a foreseeable risk of childhood sexual abuse specifically, and not any other particular kind of harm.” She highlights Rancho Cucamonga Central School District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino, which held that constructive notice evidence of a perpetrator-employee known by students as suspicious or seen by students engaging in inappropriate sexual misconduct with other students is inadmissible because a school employee needed to have observed conduct that would justify an inference of constructive knowledge. “Otherwise,” Tania explains, “such evidence is speculative.”
Tania concludes the article by reinforcing why these issues are key to understanding how such cases are being approached in courts today. “The resurgence of prioritizing long-standing evidentiary principles in suits against public entities signifies a correction in the balance between giving plaintiffs their day in court and ensuring fairness is afforded to defendants during the litigation process.”
Read the full article in National Law Review.