The opinion
Filed 3/10/26 Orozco v. Dept. of Transportation CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
RENALDO OROZCO et al., B334870
Plaintiffs and Appellants, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 20STCV47389
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Lisa R. Jaskol, Judge. Affirmed.
First Law Group, Eric A. Forstrom and Z. Dean Hakkak
for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Holbrook, Montoya, Berkebile, Erin E. Holbrook, Eric D.
Weisel, Jerald M. Montoya and Germaine C. Ng for Defendant
and Respondent.
_________________________
Benjamin Orozco lost control of his van while driving
on a freeway onramp. The van left the roadway and went down
an embankment, striking and killing Flor De Maria Lopez
Carcamo. Carcamo’s family members sued the Department
of Transportation (Caltrans), alleging it created a dangerous
condition of public property. Caltrans moved for summary
judgment on the grounds that it is entitled to design immunity.
The trial court agreed and granted the motion. On appeal,
the plaintiffs contend the trial court erred because Caltrans
failed to submit substantial evidence showing the onramp
design was reasonable. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Background
In the late morning of November 20, 2019, Benjamin
Orozco drove his Chevy Express van onto the westbound State
Route 118 onramp from San Fernando road. It had been raining
that day, and the pavement was wet. Orozco lost control of
the van and it started to “zig-zag” on the road. The van slid off
the right side of the road, traveled down an embankment, and
crashed into a tree near an encampment of unhoused people.
The van rolled onto its side, pinning and killing Carcamo.
2. The complaint
Carcamo’s family members—Renaldo Orozco, Rosalia
Del Carmen Orozco, Sheiffer Melissa Palacios Lopez, and
Brandon Ali Palacios Lopez—filed a lawsuit against Caltrans
and several other defendants. The operative second amended
complaint asserted a single cause of action against Caltrans for
creating a dangerous condition of public property in violation
2
of Government Code section 835.1 According to the complaint,
the onramp constituted a dangerous condition because it did not
have adequate guardrails and fencing, the road lacked safeguards
to prevent or remedy wet conditions, the public entities failed to
manage or remove an encampment in the area, and the roadway
had inadequate signage.
3. Caltrans’s motion for summary judgment
Caltrans moved for summary judgment. Caltrans argued it
could establish the three elements required for design immunity
under section 830.6: (1) a causal relationship between the plan
or design and the accident; (2) discretionary approval of the
plan or design prior to construction; and (3) substantial evidence
supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design.
In support of its motion, Caltrans submitted a 24-page
declaration from Christian Engelmann, who is a licensed civil
and traffic engineer. Engelmann worked at Caltrans from
December 1999 until July 2016. During that time, he was
responsible for reviewing and approving construction project
plans and was involved with Caltrans’s highway design,
review, and approval process.
To form his opinions, Engelmann reviewed the operative
complaint, a traffic collision report, photographs taken during
the collision investigation, project plans related to the onramp,
and Caltrans’s design manuals. He also personally visited
the onramp in May 2022.
According to Engelmann, the onramp begins as two lanes
and transitions to a single lane before merging with the freeway
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Government
Code.
3
traffic. The alignment consists of two curves reversing upon
each other, which are connected by a straight section of roadway.
Orozco’s van left the road while driving on the straight section,
where the roadway is 27 feet wide and drivers have a “clear view
of the onramp and its alignment.” Engelmann measured the
embankment’s slope to be approximately 2:1 at that point.
Engelmann explained that California law vests in Caltrans
the full possession and control of state highways. Caltrans
delegates that authority to its employees who are licensed
civil engineers. Engineers have discretionary authority to
approve project plans, and they use their engineering judgment
to determine whether to do so. A Caltrans engineer’s signature
on project plans reflects the engineer concluded the project was
“designed in conformity with the appropriate guidelines and
procedures for roadway design in effect at the time of the design.”
According to Engelmann, Caltrans has published a
Highway Design Manual since 1970. Before then, it published
a Planning Manual of Instructions (Planning Manual). These
manuals “contain guidelines for engineers who design and
operate transportation facilities.” The manuals do not provide
legal standards and are “not a substitute for engineering
knowledge, experience, or judgment.” They are intended to
“provide a guide for the engineer to exercise sound judgment
in applying standards, consistent with the project development
philosophy.”
Engelmann stated Caltrans constructed the onramp
over the course of two projects completed in the 1970s. The first
project—completed in 1971—created the embankment upon
which the onramp would be constructed. The second project—
completed in 1976—constructed the roadway itself. The plans
4
for the 1976 project include a drawing labeled “guard railing.”2
The drawing did not call for installation of a guardrail at
the specific location where Orozco’s van left the roadway.
Two licensed civil engineers signed the plans for each project,
and the projects were completed according to those plans.
Caltrans undertook three other projects in the general area
of the onramp: a landscaping project in 1982, installation of
a meter in 2000, and a resurfacing project in 2019. As part of
the 2019 resurfacing project, Caltrans engineers inspected a
section of the roadway that included the onramp. The engineers
recommended guardrails be installed and updated as part of
the project, but not at the specific location where Orozco’s van
left the roadway. A licensed civil engineer signed the plans
for the resurfacing project.
Engelmann discussed in detail eight design elements of
the onramp: the embankment, guardrail, lane width, shoulder
width, profile, asphalt dike, drainage, and trees. Engelmann
concluded each design element was reasonable at the time of
design and continues to be reasonable today. With respect to the
lack of a guardrail, Engelmann explained the “decision to install
guardrail[s] is based on engineering judgment or an engineering
study.” He noted that, as part of the 1976 and 2019 projects,
civil engineers exercised their discretionary authority and
determined a guardrail was not required at the specific location
where Orozco’s van left the roadway. Engelmann opined those
decisions were reasonable at the time and remain reasonable
today.
2 The drawing also bears the labels “striping,” “concrete
barrier,” “pavement markers,” and “guide markers.”
5
4. Plaintiffs’ opposition
Plaintiffs opposed Caltrans’s motion, arguing the onramp
constituted a dangerous condition and Caltrans failed to show
design immunity. Plaintiffs asserted the onramp design was
not reasonable, as Caltrans failed to comply with the criteria
in its own manuals when it elected not to install a guardrail.
Plaintiffs alternatively asserted there was a change in physical
condition that caused the state to lose design immunity.
According to Plaintiffs, Caltrans failed to prevent, manage,
or remove an encampment at the bottom of the onramp
embankment. In passing, Plaintiffs also argued there are
triable issues on whether the repaved surface was able to
handle moisture and drainage properly.
Plaintiffs filed an expert declaration from Edward Ruzak.
Ruzak is a civil engineer and worked at Caltrans for a few years
in the 1960s. Since then, he has primarily worked as an
engineering consultant. Ruzak opined the lack of a guardrail
“for the onramp constituted a dangerous condition at the time
of the accident.”
Ruzak criticized Engelmann for failing to analyze the
sections of Caltrans’s design manuals that concern guardrails.
He noted that section 7-702 of the 1964 version of the Planning
Manual states, “ ‘[T]he need for a guard rail is generally
determined by considering the following factors: (a) height
of embankment; (b) alignment; (c) roadbed width; (d) accident
history; (e) speed and volume of traffic; (f) visibility; and
(g) climatic conditions.’ ” It continues, “ ‘[O]n curves requiring
a reduction in approach speeds of the faster group of drivers,
any one of the following conditions indicate that consideration
should be given to the installation of a guard rail on the outside
6
of the curves: (a) Height of embankment more than 10 feet[;]
(b) Side slope steeper than 4:1[;] (c) Shoulder width less than
8 feet.[’] ” Ruzak asserted, based on his own field observations,
the height of the embankment is between 15 and 25 feet, the
slope is between 2:1 and 1.5:1, and the ramp shoulder is only
4.4 feet wide. He also noted the onramp has significant traffic,
it transitions from two lanes to one, drivers must slow down
due to the reverse curve design, and “[c]limatic conditions
include rain.”
Ruzak also discussed the 2012 version of Caltrans’s
“Traffic Manual.” The manual states, whether to install a
guardrail to shield an embankment slope is “ ‘largely a result
of analyzing the [relevant criteria] and determining whether
a vehicle hitting a guard rail is more severe than going over the
embankment slope.’ ” Ruzak explained that, based on a graph
included in the manual, going over the onramp’s embankment
slope is considered more severe than hitting a guardrail.
Ruzak concluded, based on his observations and the
relevant sections of Caltrans’s design manuals, “Caltrans
clearly failed to properly analyze the need for a guard rail
proximate to the crash site, nor did its expert, Mr. Engelmann.
Indeed, Caltrans failed to follow its own ‘Planning Manual’
criteria. Consequently, many of the design elements are
unreasonable and contributed to creating a dangerous condition.”
Ruzak asserted Caltrans “failed to conduct the requisite
investigation (prior to the crash) into whether the roadway
was safe for travel. [Caltrans] also failed to install a guardrail
(or provide satisfactory evidence of its consideration and
reasonable rejection). In short, [Caltrans] failed to satisfy
applicable engineering standards.”
7
5. The order and judgment
The trial court granted Caltrans’s motion for summary
judgment. The court concluded Caltrans met its burden to show
all the elements of design immunity. On the reasonableness
element, the court pointed to Engelmann’s opinion that the
design was reasonable as well as evidence showing Caltrans
engineers used their discretionary authority to approve the
plans for the onramp. The court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument
concerning a change in condition, explaining they failed to
explain how the presence of unhoused people and the resurfacing
constituted sufficiently changed conditions.
The court entered judgment for Caltrans. Plaintiffs
timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred by granting Caltrans’s
motion for summary judgment. They contend Caltrans created
a dangerous condition by not installing a guardrail at the specific
location where Orozco’s van left the roadway. Plaintiffs assert
Caltrans failed to establish design immunity because it did
not submit substantial evidence showing the reasonableness
of its design.
The Government Claims Act provides a public entity is
liable for an injury to a person only to the extent provided by
statute. (Hampton v. County of San Diego (2015) 62 Cal.4th
340, 347.) Under section 835, subdivision (b), a public entity is
liable “for injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition
of its property if the dangerous condition created a reasonably
foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the
public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition
a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventive
8
measures.” (Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001)
26 Cal.4th 63, 68 (Cornette).)
A public entity may avoid liability for an injury caused
by a dangerous condition by raising the affirmative defense
of design immunity. (See § 830.6.) “A public entity claiming
design immunity must establish three elements: (1) a causal
relationship between the plan or design and the accident; (2)
discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction;
and (3) substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness
of the plan or design.” (Cornette, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 66.)
Plaintiffs concede that Caltrans established the first two
elements of design immunity; they challenge only the third
element. The third element “is a matter for the courts, not the
jury, to decide.” (Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, 653.)
“ ‘The normal rules governing a motion for summary
judgment, and requiring its denial if any triable issue of fact
appears, are not fully applicable [to cases involving design
immunity under Government Code section 830.6]. For example,
the defendant is not required to prove to the court that the design
or plan was in fact a reasonable one. Instead, the defendant
is merely required to adduce any “substantial evidence” that
a reasonable public employee or legislative body could have
approved the plan or design used under [Government Code
section] 830.6. Thus, when the defendant files a motion
for summary judgment, the existence of a possible conflict
of evidence, as shown by the proof submitted on the motion,
will not create a triable issue on this aspect of the defense that
can defeat a summary judgment . . . .’ [Citation.] ‘We are not
concerned with whether the evidence of reasonableness is
9
undisputed; the statute provides immunity when there is
substantial evidence of reasonableness, even if contradicted.
[Citations.]’ ” (Wyckoff v. State of California (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 45, 50–51.)
“ ‘Any substantial evidence’ to establish this third element
of the immunity may consist of the following: Discretionary
approval of the design plans themselves [citation]; the expert
opinion of a civil engineer as to the reasonableness of the design
[citation]; or evidence the design or plan complies with prevailing
professional standards [citation]. ‘A mere conflict in the
testimony of expert witnesses provides no justification for
the matter to go to a lay jury who will then second-guess the
judgment of skilled public officials. [Citation.]’ ” (Menges v.
Department of Transportation (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 13, 21
(Menges); see Grenier v. City of Irwindale (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th
931, 941 (Grenier).) The public entity need not show the actual
decision makers acted reasonably or that substantial evidence
of reasonableness was before them at the time. (Tansavatdi
v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 423, 440
(Tansavatdi).)
Caltrans met its burden here. It presented evidence
showing two licensed civil engineers approved the original
construction plans for the onramp in the 1970s, and another
licensed civil engineer approved plans for a resurfacing project
in 2019. According to Caltrans’s expert, the engineers’ approvals
signify their determinations that the plans met applicable design
standards and procedures. There is no direct evidence that the
engineers considered installing a guardrail at the specific location
where Orozco’s van left the roadway. However, the plans for
both projects referred to guardrails. The resurfacing project,
10
in particular, called for installing and upgrading guardrails
at and near the onramp. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer
the engineers considered installing guardrails at other locations
within the projects’ scopes—including the location where Orozco’s
van left the roadway—but determined it was not necessary.
(See Tansavatdi, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 440 [evidence that
the engineer who approved plans considered the challenged
design element supports the reasonableness of the design].)
Caltrans also presented an expert declaration from
Engelmann, who is a licensed civil engineer with decades of
experience. Engelmann discussed eight design elements of the
onramp, one of which was the absence of a guardrail where
Orozco’s van left the roadway. Engelmann opined each of those
design elements was reasonable at the time Caltrans approved it
and remains reasonable today. Engelmann’s opinion, along with
the evidence of discretionary approval by three licensed civil
engineers, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the
reasonableness of the design. (See Menges, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th
at p. 21 [evidence of civil engineer’s approval of relevant design
plans alone was sufficient to establish the third element of
design immunity]; Grenier, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 936, 941
[evidence that a city engineer approved plans drafted by a civil
engineer satisfied the reasonableness requirement]; see also
Gonzales v. City of Atwater (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 929, 953
[“ ‘approval by competent professionals can, in and of itself,
establish the reasonableness element’ ”]; Stufkosky v. Department
of Transportation (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 492, 500 [generally,
“ ‘a civil engineer’s opinion regarding reasonableness is
substantial evidence sufficient to satisfy’ ” the reasonableness
11
element of design immunity]; Tansavatdi, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th
at pp. 438–439 [same].)
Plaintiffs acknowledge that the type of evidence Caltrans
submitted—discretionary approval by licensed engineers
and expert opinion—may constitute substantial evidence of
reasonableness in some circumstances. However, they argue
it was not sufficient here because the design did not comply with
Caltrans’s own standards. Specifically, they contend the lack of
a guardrail is inconsistent with section 7-702 of the 1964 version
of the Planning Manual, which lists the factors relevant to the
decision to install a guardrail. Plaintiffs suggest their expert’s
analysis of those factors demonstrates that the Planning Manual
required installation of a guardrail next to the embankment.
We disagree.
Although Plaintiffs’ expert suggested some of the section
7-702 factors weighed in favor of a guardrail, he did not go so far
as to assert they required one.3 Nor did Plaintiffs’ expert address
the section 7-702 factors that weighed in favor of Caltrans’s
design. Caltrans presented undisputed evidence showing
Orozco’s van left the roadway at a tangent (i.e. straight) section
of the onramp, the roadway width is 27 feet at that location,
drivers have a “clear view of the onramp and its alignment,”
and the onramp sufficiently drains rain water. Section 7-702
does not mandate how an engineer must weigh the relevant
factors. Therefore, the fact that some factors weighed against
3 Tellingly, Plaintiffs’ expert never explicitly stated
Caltrans’s decision not to install a guardrail next to the
embankment was unreasonable. He vaguely stated “many
of the design elements are unreasonable,” but he did not
specifically identify the guardrail as one of those elements.
12
Caltrans’s decision does not show the design violated Caltrans’s
standards or otherwise was unreasonable.
Nor are we persuaded by Plaintiffs’ contention that
Caltrans failed to meet its burden because it presented no
evidence that the engineers considered section 7-702 before
approving the plans. Although there is no direct evidence
that the Caltrans engineers weighed the section 7-702 factors,
it is reasonable to infer they did. According to Engelmann, the
engineers’ signatures on the design plans reflect a determination
that the plans comply with the relevant standards. Therefore,
to the extent section 7-702 reflected an engineering standard
at the time,4 the engineers’ signatures themselves support an
inference that they considered those factors when deciding
whether to install a guardrail. That inference is significantly
strengthened by the fact that the relevance of the section 7-702
factors is a matter of common sense. Indeed, it is obvious—
even to a non-engineer—that the need for a guardrail to shield
an embankment depends on the traffic and weather conditions,
width and alignment of the roadway, visibility, accident history,
and embankment height. Therefore, it is difficult to fathom
how the engineers could not have considered those factors when
deciding whether to install a guardrail next to the embankment.5
4 Caltrans notes that the section 7-702 factors upon which
Plaintiffs rely come from a version of the Planning Manual
that was no longer in effect when the engineers approved the
construction plans. We will assume, for the sake of argument,
that the same factors also appeared in the version of the
Planning Manual that was in effect at the relevant times.
5 We do not mean to suggest the decision to install a
guardrail is a matter of common sense, only that the relevance
13
We also reject Plaintiffs’ contention that Engelmann’s
failure to address the section 7-702 factors is “fatal” to his
opinion. Although Engelmann did not cite section 7-702 in
his declaration, he was aware of most of the relevant factors.
Engelmann visited the onramp in person, allowing him to
measure and observe firsthand the traffic conditions, driver
visibility, roadway alignment, embankment height, and
roadway width. It also is reasonable to infer Engelmann is
familiar with the general weather conditions in Southern
California.6 As we noted above, the relevance of the section 7-702
factors to the guardrail issue is generally a matter of common
sense. Therefore, although Engelmann did not explicitly refer
to section 7-702 in his declaration, it is reasonable to infer he
considered the relevant factors while forming his opinion. His
failure explicitly to discuss those factors affects the weight of
his opinion, but it does not render it entirely worthless, as
Plaintiffs suggest.
Nor is there merit to Plaintiffs’ suggestion that a guardrail
was required because the embankment is more than 10 feet tall,
the slope is steeper than 4:1, and the shoulder width is less than
eight feet. In support, Plaintiffs rely on provisions in section
of the section 7-702 factors is obvious. Precisely how to weigh
those factors requires expertise and is a matter beyond common
sense.
6 The only section 7-702 factor Engelmann potentially did
not have access to was the onramp’s accident history. However,
there is nothing in the record to suggest there was a high
collision rate at the onramp or any other incidents in which
a vehicle left the roadway. Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise.
14
7-702 that apply to the outside of “curves requiring a reduction
in approach speeds of the faster group of drivers.” Caltrans
presented undisputed evidence showing Orozco was not driving
on a curved section of the onramp when his van left the roadway.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ reliance on those provisions is irrelevant.
The same is true of Plaintiffs’ reliance on a provision stating
“consideration should be given to the installation of a guard rail
if there is a concentration of running off the roadway accidents
or if unusually high embankments or steep terrain give motorists
a feeling of insecurity.” There is nothing in the record even to
suggest either applies here.
We also reject Plaintiffs’ contention that the onramp design
is inconsistent with section 7-03 of the 2012 Traffic Manual.
Section 7-03.3 lists factors that “may be used as a guide” when
considering the installation of a guardrail: collision history,
alignment, volume and speed of traffic, merge and weave areas,
climate, and roadside recovery area. Section 7-03.4 states the
decision to install a guardrail “to shield embankment slopes
is largely a result of analyzing [those factors] on a case by case
basis and determining whether a vehicle hitting [a] guardrail
is more severe than going over an embankment slope.” The
Traffic Manual includes an “equal severity curve” graph that
shows, for a given embankment height and slope, whether
striking a guardrail would be more or less severe than going
over the embankment. Plaintiffs note that, applying Ruzak’s
measurements to the equal severity curve, it would be less
severe to strike a guardrail at the location where Orozco’s van
left the roadway than it would be to go over the embankment.
At the outset, the equal severity curve in the 2012 Traffic
Manual did not exist in the 1970s, when Caltrans approved the
15
original onramp design.7 Although it appears a different version
of the curve existed at that time, Plaintiffs did not include it
in the record. Therefore, we do not know whether that version
of the curve would have weighed in favor of a guardrail. In any
event, the equal severity curve is not the determining factor
when deciding whether to install a guardrail. Instead, the
Traffic Manual states it is one factor among many that an
engineer should consider. As we discussed above, the record
contains evidence showing some of those factors support
Caltrans’s decision not to install a guardrail. The fact that
the equal severity curve might support the opposite conclusion
does not invalidate that evidence. Nor does it invalidate
Caltrans’s evidence showing four licensed civil engineers
determined—explicitly or implicitly—a guardrail is not required.
Finally, we reject Plaintiffs’ passing argument that
Caltrans lost its immunity because of a change in physical
condition. A public entity loses its design immunity if the
plaintiff establishes three elements: “(1) the plan or design has
become dangerous because of a change in physical conditions;
(2) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition thus created; and (3) the public entity had
a reasonable time to obtain the funds and carry out the necessary
remedial work to bring the property back into conformity with a
reasonable design or plan, or the public entity, unable to remedy
the condition due to practical impossibility or lack of funds,
had not reasonably attempted to provide adequate warnings.”
(Cornette, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 72.)
7 The Traffic Manual states the severity curve was developed
in the 1960s, was updated in the early 1980s, and is “still
applicable” in 2012.
16
Plaintiffs contend the “development and presence of a
homeless encampment around the subject roadway” and the
2019 roadway resurfacing constitute changed conditions for
purposes of design immunity. Plaintiffs do not provide relevant
authority or reasoned analysis explaining how either constitutes
a sufficient change in physical condition. Nor do they address
the other two elements required to show Caltrans lost its
design immunity. Accordingly, they have not met their burden
to show the trial court erred. (See Mirzada v. Department of
Transportation (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 802, 806–807 [“plaintiffs
needed to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable
issue of fact with respect to each” element of the loss of design
immunity]; Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“ ‘error must be affirmatively shown’ ”].)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment and award Caltrans its costs on
appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EGERTON, J.
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
ADAMS, J.
17