noting that the location of a public improvement or its relationship to its surroundings may constitute a dangerous condition under Cal. Gov.Code § 835
How later courts described this case
- noting that the location of a public improvement or its relationship to its surroundings may constitute a dangerous condition under Cal. Gov.Code § 835
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Hen v. City of Los Angeles, 244 F. App'x 794 (2007)
Bonanno and Joyce do not apply to the facts of this case, and neither calls into question MoncuVs and Zelig’s applicability-
The opinion
YEGAN, J., Concurring.
In the first appeal to this court, the majority opinion was authored by Justice Gilbert with Presiding Justice Stone concurring. It said: “Here we hold that an open gate at a public school can be a dangerous condition of public property if it encourages students to cross at a dangerous intersection next to the school.” I dissented saying, inter alia, “School districts have no duty to provide traffic protection to students walking to school.” The opinion was certified for publication but was ordered not to be published by the California Supreme Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 976(c)(2).) Thereafter, I adhered to the “law of the case” (see ante, at pp. 303-305) as the author of the majority opinions in the next two appeals (see ante, at p. 296). I adhere to the law of the case today.
As explained in the present majority opinion, the law has recently been settled by our Supreme Court in the Bonanno case. (Bonanno v. Central *309 Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139 [ 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 341 , 65 P.3d 807 ].) The letter and spirit of the Bonanno case can only be characterized as being consistent with Justice Gilbert’s prescient first majority opinion. With the benefit of the reasoning of Bonanno and with some judicial hindsight, it now seems reasonable that the district’s decision to maintain the open school gate substantially contributed to plaintiff’s injuries even though the school district had no control over the street and the marked crosswalk. Phrased otherwise, “ ‘[t]he matter does not appear to me now as it appears to have appeared to me then.’ (Citation.)” (McGrath v. Kristensen (1950) 340 U.S. 162, 178 [ 95 L.Ed. 173, 185 , 71 S.Ct. 224 ] (conc. opn. of Jackson, J.).)
A petition for a rehearing was denied August 4, 2003, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied September 17, 2003. Kennard, J., did not participate therein. Baxter, J., and Brown, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.