HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - December 19, 2001 E-18CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Request to Join in Amicus Brief in the case of Bonanno v.
Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, Supreme Court
MEETING DATE: December 19, 2001
PREPARED BY: Randall A. Hays, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the City join the Amicus Brief in the case of Bonanno
v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority
BACKGROUND: Amicus Briefs are filed in various actions, which involves matters of
wide-ranging concern to provide information and additional
argument to the Court in order to assist the Court in understanding
all of the issues and arrive at a conclusion.
The above case has been accepted by the California Supreme Court for argument. The facts of this case
are fairly simple. The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority had a bus stop located on a street in the City
of Martinez. A pedestrian who was crossing the street to get to the bus stop was struck by a driver who
failed to see the pedestrian in the cross walk. The pedestrian, Darlene Bonanno, filed suit against the
Transit Authority claiming that the location of the bus stop induced her to cross the street, thereby creating
a dangerous condition for which the Transit Authority could be held liable. At trial the jury found the Transit
Authority one percent at fault for the pedestrian's injury. Due to joint and severable liability concepts, that
particular one percent of fault resulted in a $1.5 million judgment against the Transit Authority. That
decision was appealed but was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court has
indicated now to hear the case.
The finding of liability because public property attracts or encourages somebody to do something is a
totally new concept in law in the State of California. In fact, it is exactly opposite of the state of the law as it
now stands in California. Using a factual situation that would be contemporary for the City of Lodi would be
an argument that Lodi Lake Park, because of its very existence which induces people to come to the park
represents a dangerous condition for which the City would be liable should someone be hit in a crosswalk
or have a vehicle accident on their way to the park. That particular concept has raised quite a furor
throughout the State. Clearly such a concept would put governmental entities at a great deal of risk for any
number of activities that it undertakes which in fact caused people to be drawn to them.
The fact that the California Supreme Court has decided to hear this case is important so that the particular
concept can be argued and hopefully reversed.
Funding: Not applicable. Respectfully submitted,
Ran all A. Hays, City Attney