January 2024 - Parks & Recreation - 31

gym " and/or " specific instructions
to refrain from opening the Darby
Park gym. " In addition, Plaintiffs
contended " a lack of adequate
precautions, such as control measures
and/or security, " constituted
a " dangerous condition " that
the City " failed to remedy or prevent,
despite actual or constructive
knowledge of the condition. "
Plaintiffs further asserted " there
at
have been multiple shootings
Darby Park prior to January 5,
2021. " According to Plaintiffs, a
7-year-old boy was shot and killed
on December 8, 1997, in Darby
Park as a result of apparent " gang
retaliation. " In addition, a 22-yearold
man was fatally shot in his car
in the parking lot of Darby Park on
October 15, 2012.
On the day of the shooting on
January 5, 2021, Plaintiffs contended
" there were no cameras in
the Darby Park parking lot, and a
lack of adequate precautions, including
but not limited to, attendants,
control measures, and/or
security. " Given " multiple shootings
at Darby Park prior to January
5, 2021, " Plaintiffs claimed
the lack of cameras in Darby Park
presented " attractive opportunities
to the criminal element of society, "
which rendered " the Darby
Park parking lot attractive to
criminal activities and inherently
dangerous. " As a result, Plaintiffs
maintained the adjacent parking
lot in Darby Park constituted a
" dangerous condition " because
" the City failed to remedy or prevent,
despite actual or constructive
knowledge of the condition. "
Accordingly, Plaintiffs argued the
City had " breached its duty of care
to decedent " by " failing to provide
security cameras in the area, failing
to provide adequate precautions,
and failing to provide adequate
warning about the dangerous condition. "
In so doing, Plaintiffs asserted
the legal " proximate cause "
of decedent Andrew Summerfield
being shot was a direct result of a
dangerous
condition created by
" the City's negligence and unsafe
condition of the premises. "
In response, the City filed a " demurrer "
(i.e., a motion to dismiss)
arguing Plaintiffs'
" complaint
failed to state causes of action
for dangerous condition of public
property and for negligence " under
state law.
Trial Court
The issue before the trial court was
whether the City could be held liable
under state law for failing to
provide " adequate precautions, "
such as " control measures and/or
security " in this particular instance.
As noted by the trial court: " Public
entities generally are not liable
for failing to protect against third
party crime. " Accordingly, the trial
court held the City " is immune
from liability arising from its failure
to provide security or supervision
at Darby Park parking lot. "
In addition, the trial court found
" the City's alleged failure to warn
of criminal activity in the Darby
Park parking lot could not form a
basis for liability. " The trial court
further found Plaintiffs' complaint
failed to allege " why the lack of
cameras in this instance created
a substantial
risk of
decedent's
shooting such that it constituted a
dangerous condition " under state
liability
law (Government Code
Section 835).
The trial court also ruled the complaint
did not " set forth allegations
that show that the lack of surveillance
cameras created a substantial
risk of decedent's shooting. " In so
doing, the trial court found the allegations
in Plaintiffs' complaint
did not demonstrate " the absence
of surveillance cameras within
Darby Park created a substantial
risk of injury to decedent, thereby
rendering Darby Park a dangerous
condition. "
Having found no legal basis for
any liability, the trial court entered
a judgment for the City dismissing
the lawsuit. Plaintiffs appealed.
On Appeal
In reviewing the trial court's judgment
of dismissal after a demurrer
is sustained, the appeals court
would examine the trial court's
ruling to determine whether the
complaint " alleges facts sufficient
to state a cause of action under any
legal theory. "
On appeal, Plaintiffs claimed the
complaint had indeed alleged sufficient
facts to state a cause of action
for " dangerous condition " liability
under Government Code Section
835. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argued
their lawsuit " should be allowed to
go forward and present evidence "
of a " dangerous condition " under
state law. According to Plaintiffs,
further proceedings in a full trial
would demonstrate " the City's
failure to install cameras or to post
warnings, given the City's alleged
actual or implied notice of ongoing
violent criminal activity, constituted
a dangerous condition. "
Section 835 Governmental
Liability
As cited by the appeals court, Section
835 in the Government Code
provided a public entity is " liable
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | J ANUAR Y 2 0 2 4 | Parks & Recreation
31
January 2024 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of January 2024 - Parks & Recreation
