Dangerous Condition of Public Property | Michael Reiter, Municipal Attorney with Milligan, Attorney, Beswick, Levine & Knox LLP Blog

Filed under 42 United States Code section 1983, City Clerk, City of Highland, City of Ontario, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Government Claims, Inverse Condemnation, Municipal Code, Municipal Law, Personal Injury Law, Real Property Law, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino County Incorporated Cities and Towns, Trip and Fall Tagged with City of Highland, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, Government Claims, Government Code, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Public Entities, Tort Claims

Releases for Gross Negligence In the Context of Sports or Recreational Programs or Services are Void In California

April 25, 2012 Leave a comment

Most people have been asked to sign releases at various times, particularly for participation of their children in youth activities. Are they valid? They can be in many cases. But in certain cases, they may be void if there is a public policy reason or statute. For example, Civil Code section 1668 prohibits contracts which “have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.” Further, case law in California has prohibited releases of future gross negligence as being void against public policy. City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 758.

There is an entire inquiry into whether a release is valid, which I won’t discuss here today. Suffice it to say, you should consult with a personal injury attorney even if there is a release, because it is a technical question. Most, if not all, personal injury attorneys provide a free consultation in personal injury cases.

In the City of San Barbara case, mentioned above, the mother of a developmentally disabled 14 year-old signed a release purporting to release the City of Santa Barbara and its employees from liability for “any negligent act” related to the child’s participation in a summer camp, run by the City, for developmentally disabled children. The child drowned, and the parents filed suit.

We conclude . . . that an agreement made in the context of sports or recreational programs or services, purporting to release liability for future gross negligence, generally is unenforceable as a matter of public policy. Applying that general rule in the case now before us, we hold that the agreement, to the extent it purports to release liability for future gross negligence, violates public policy and is unenforceable.

My Torts Professor, Kenneth Manaster, drummed in our heads that “gross negligence” was not a term that we should bandy about, and of course he said it in 1995 or 1996, eleven years before City of Santa Barbara. There is a sort of “folk law” idea of what gross negligence is, perhaps informed by the law of other, non-California states. In the City of Santa Barbara case, the California Supreme Court distinguishes between ordinary negligence and gross negligence:

We begin by defining the terms that underlie the issue presented. “Ordinary negligence”—an unintentional tort—consists of a failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm. (See, e.g., Donnelly v. Southern Pacific Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 863, 869, 118 P.2d 465 (Donnelly ).)

“Gross negligence” long has been defined in California and other jurisdictions as either a “want of even scant care” or “an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.” (Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1185–1186, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 552, 80 P.3d 656 (Eastburn ), and cases cited; accord, Colich & Sons v. Pacific Bell (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1240, 244 Cal.Rptr. 714 (Colich ); Kearl v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1986) 189 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1052–1053, 236 Cal.Rptr. 526; see also, e.g., Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts (5th ed.1984) § 34, pp. 211–212 (Prosser and Keeton); 57A Am.Jur.2d (2004) Negligence, § 227, p. 296.) City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. 4th 747, 753-54, 161 P.3d 1095, 1099 (2007).

The procedural posture of the City of Santa Barbara was somewhat unusual. The City moved for Summary Judgment, lost, and appealed immediately. The case was set for trial, and then the City settled before the trial started for $2,000,000.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under City Council, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Government Claims, Gross Negligence, Municipal Law, Personal Injury Law, Release Tagged with gross negligence, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, public policy, Santa Clara University School of Law

LAPD Legal Payouts By the City of Los Angeles

January 23, 2012 Leave a comment

Michael Reiter, Attorney at Law.

On January 22, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published a spreadsheet showing the amounts paid by (or collected in some rare cases) by the City of Los Angeles related to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The numbers are fascinating, and no doubt required a great deal of clerical work either by the employees of the Los Angeles Times, or by the employees of the City of Los Angeles. This is a good illustration of the benefits of the California Public Records Act.

The cases run the gamut from minor traffic accidents to wrongful death suits to disability payouts to Federal civil rights cases, and even dangerous condition of public property. I have a perspective on this data because I am a plaintiff’s attorney, both in the personal injury and the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights arenas, and because I defended cities and police officers for about ten years, first as a Deputy City Attorney and then as as an Assistant City Attorney.

The information regarding the car accidents is not surprising. In an accompanying article, reporter Joel Rubin writes:

The city has paid nearly $24 million in settlements or verdicts in about 400 LAPD traffic-related lawsuits over the last nine years and must contend with dozens more cases that remain unresolved, city records show. In all but a few of the closed cases, city officials opted to pay a negotiated settlement instead of taking their chances at a trial — a strong indication that the officers were in the wrong.

However, other interesting information can be gleaned from the data: the City of Los Angeles does not try as many cases as you would think for a City of that size or a City Attorney’s Office of that size. I counted only 25 trials out of 921 cases with a listed disposition. On the other hand, there were not that many outright $0 verdicts or settlements, 16 by my count.

Thirteen of those are what I would characterize as alleged Federal Civil Rights allegations: 4 were listed as Dismissal-Court, which I would take to mean a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. There are 4 voluntary dismissals, though it is not clear if that means that there was a dismissal with a waiver of costs and a release, or whether the cases listed as Settlement (three cases). Only one of the civil rights cases was listed as won on Summary Judgment. One case does not give information about how the City of Los Angeles was not liable.

Federal Civil Rights cases are very fact dependent, so looking at the raw statistics without more information (the alleged conduct, the case number, stage of disposition), for example.

This is good investigative journalism by the Los Angeles Times.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Filed under 42 United States Code section 1983, City Attorney, City of Los Angeles, Civil Rights, Constituational Rights, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Federal Court, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles Police Department, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Municipal Law, Personal Injury Law Tagged with LAPD, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Settlements

Gophers Can Cause Trip and Falls

January 5, 2012 Leave a comment

I went out for another walk today, in the late afternoon. I love to see California native wildlife, like a California Pocket Gopher

I am a big fan of California wildlife, particularly Pocket Gophers, though not as much as my late friend Emma. I had never seen a living pocket gopher before, but this individual poked his head up a few times, and I was able to get a picture of his head. Unfortunately, I only had an iPhone to take a picture, and it was from about six feet away.

Gophers can cause damage to lawns. They can also damage parks. When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I defended a lawsuit involving an AYSO coach who allegedly tripped and fell in a field in Wildwood Park. Because the case involved a public entity, the plaintiff had to plead and prove a dangerous condition of public property cause of action, but with a private landowner, the standard is typically negligence. The case also involved cross-complaints against the City’s pest controller contractor and the American Youth Soccer Organization. If I recall correctly, the American Youth Soccer Organization, Inc. picked up the City’s defense under an express indemnification clause in a field use agreement.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Animals, City of San Bernardino, Civil Procedure, County of San Bernardino, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Dangerous Intersection, Demand for Inspection, Evidence, Gophers, Insurance, Insurance, Municipal Law, Park Accident, Pedestrian Accident, Personal Injury Law, Real Property Law, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, Small Business Law, Trip and Fall Tagged with animals, AYSO, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, indemnification, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Personal Injury, public entity, torts

What is a “dangerous condition of public property?”

November 28, 2011 Leave a comment

A public entity may only be held liable for a dangerous condition of its property, not for simple negligence or premises liability. Before I was in private practice helping plaintiffs, I received a good education in a variety of dangerous condition of public property cases when I was Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino and as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands.

A “dangerous condition” is “a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury when such property . . . is used with due care in a manner in which it is foreseeable that it will be used.” Government Code § 830(a). A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of property it owns or controls if the plaintiff establishes that (1) the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury; (2) that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition; (3) the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury incurred; and either (i) a public employee, within the scope of his or her employment, negligent or wrongly committed an act or omission that created the condition or (ii) the entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in sufficient time before the injury to take protective measures against the dangerous condition. California Government Code §§ 830, 835.

What are the kinds of scenarios that might involve two public entities, or a mix of public entities and private entities? The scenarios I have seen as an attorney have included:

1. A city, a water district, and a private land owner, where a sidewalk panel was removed to replace a meter box, and the sidewalk panel was never replaced. The plaintiff tripped and fell.

2. A city, a school district, and an adjoining land owner, and a nonprofit youth organization, where the plaintiff tripped over a utility cover, wherein the surrounding compacted dirt had eroded over the years, but no sidewalk ever existed.

3. A city, a county, and a private land owner, and a private party, where a motorcyclist died at an intersection jointly controlled by the city and county, when the motorcyclist was struck by the private party’s automobile.

4. A trip and fall that happened only in one city, but the plaintiff sued two cities because it was not clear which entity owned or controlled the sidewalk.

5. An injury to a person who was waiting at a bus stop from a city tree in a city park, but at a bus stop owned and controlled by a joint-powers authority transit system.

6. A flooding case wherein the flood control channel was owned by a county flood control agency, but the culvert and bridge were owned by a city.

California Government Code section 830(c) states “‘Property of a public entity’ and “public property” means real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity, but do not include easements, encroachments and other property that are located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or controlled by the entity.”

“Where the public entity’s relationship to the dangerous property is not clear, aid may be sought by inquiring whether the particular defendant had control, in the sense of power to prevent, remedy or guard against the dangerous condition; whether his ownership is a naked title or whether it is coupled with control; and whether a private defendant, having a similar relationship to the property, would be responsible for its safe condition.” Low v. City of Sacramento (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 826, 833-834.

Obviously, ownership is a key fact to prove. Control can be more difficult. In the case of a jointly controlled intersection, there is typically an agreement between the two public entities. Obtain and examine that agreement (either through discovery or by using the California Public Records Act). Control can be established by deposing maintenance workers who have personal knowledge of the maintenance work done at the property, and to a limited extent, with written discovery.

In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the California Supreme Court ruled that “the location of public property, by which users are subjected to hazards on adjacent property, may constitute a dangerous condition” under Government Code sections 830 and 835. Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 815-816.

Therefore, there are factual scenarios where more than one public entity can be responsible for one injury by pleading and proving a dangerous condition of public property cause of action. In the flooding scenario noted above, the plaintiff also pled an inverse condemnation cause of action.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

Filed under Agreements, California Public Records Act, City of Highland, City of Redlands, City of Riverside, City of San Bernardino, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Dangerous Intersection, Demand for Inspection, Depositions, Discovery, Evidence, Form Interrogatories, Insurance, Inverse Condemnation, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Municipal Law, Park Accident, Pedestrian Accident, Personal Injury Law, Real Property Law, San Bernardino City Attorney's Office, Trip and Fall Tagged with Dangerous Condition of Public Property, joint liability, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, Personal Injury, public entity, torts

Can two public entities be jointly responsible for the same injury under a dangerous condition of public property theory of liability?

September 26, 2011 Leave a comment

What are the kinds of scenarios that might involve two public entities, or a mix of public entities and private entities? The scenarios I have seen as an attorney have included:

1. A city, a water district, and a private land owner, where a sidewalk panel was removed to replace a meter box, and the sidewalk panel was never replaced. The plaintiff tripped and fell.

4. A trip and fall that happened only in one city, but the plaintiff sued two cities because it was not clear which entity owned or controlled the sidewalk.

5. An injury to a person who was waiting at a bus stop from a city tree in a city park, but at a bus stop owned and controlled by a joint-powers authority transit system.

6. A flooding case wherein the flood control channel was owned by a county flood control agency, but the culvert and bridge were owned by a city.

Government Code section 830(c) states “‘Property of a public entity’ and “public property” means real or personal property owned or controlled by the public entity, but do not include easements, encroachments and other property that are located on the property of the public entity but are not owned or controlled by the entity.”

Also, conditions of adjacent property can make public property hazardous. In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, the California Supreme Court ruled that “the location of public property, by which users are subjected to hazards on adjacent property, may constitute a dangerous condition” under Government Code sections 830 and 835. Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, 815-816.

A: 300 E. State St. #517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708

How to Answer Form Interrogatory Number 17.1 on Personal Injury Form Interrogatories

September 6, 2011 Leave a comment

Discovery is an important part of any personal injury case. Form Interrogatory Section 17.0 is labeled Responses to Request for Admissions. This is commonly served in a personal injury case in conjunction with a Request for Admissions. The text of Form Interrogatory Number 17.1 is:

Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission:

(a) state the number of the request;

(b) state all facts upon which you base your response;

(c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and

(d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing. Form Interrogatory 17.1 California Judicial Council Form DISC-001 (Revised January 1, 2008), Page 7 of 8.

The words in boldface capitals in the interrogatories are defined in Section 4 of Form Interrogatories-General. ADDRESS is defined as “street address, including the city, state and zip code.” PERSON means “a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, limited liability company, corporation, or public entity.” DOCUMENT means “a writing, as defined in Evidence Code section 250, and includes the original or a copy of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostats, photographs, electronically stored information, and every other means of recording upon a tangible thing and form of communicating or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations of them.”

How, then, does a plaintiff or defendant answer Form Interrogatory Number 17.1? Here is an example. If the Request for Admission, Number 9 is “Please admit that YOU own the property where the PLAINTIFF was injured on the date of the INCIDENT,” and you did not admit the Request for Admission, the response would be

Response to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1:

No.

(a) Request for Admissions, Set One, Request 9;

(b) Defendant did not own the property where the Plaintiff was injured on the date of the incident because Defendant had sold the property to Cr0ss-Defendant City of Rancho Muscupiabe, on August 21, 2009;

(c) Defendant, 300 E. State St. #517, Redlands, California, (909) 296-6708 Cr0ss-Defendant City of Rancho Muscupiabe, 1200 Hill Drive, Rancho Muscupiabe, CA 92407, (909) 708-6055.

(d) Quitclaim deed, a recorded copy which is in possession of Cross-Defendant City of Rancho Muscupiabe, 1200 Hill Drive, Rancho Muscupiabe, CA 92407, (909) 708-6055.

If each response to the Request for Admission is an unqualified admission, then the answering party must simply respond to Form Interrogatory 17.1 in this way.
Response to Form Interrogatory Number 17.1:

Yes.

This interrogatory is an important tool because it explains why a party has denied a Request for Admissions, and allows the asking party to detail why the party is not admitting to certain facts.

Address: 300 E. State St. #517 Redlands CA 92373-5235

Telephone: (909) 296-6708

Email: michael@michaelreiterlaw.com

Website: http://michaelreiterlaw.com

Filed under Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Dangerous Intersection, Discovery, Form Interrogatories, Municipal Law, Personal Injury Law Tagged with City of Rancho Muscupiabe, form interrogatories, Form Interrogatory Number 17.1, Michael Reiter Attorney at Law

Vicarious Liability of an Owner for Permissive Use in California Motor Vehicle Accidents

July 26, 2011 Leave a comment

When I was the Assistant City Attorney of Redlands and a Deputy City Attorney in the City of San Bernardino, I handled a fair number of motor vehicle accident cases on behalf of the City and its employees. These cases included a police officer who allegedly ran a red light, a police officer that allegedly rear-ended a car on a freeway ramp, a police officer that allegedly sideswiped a car in a carpool lane, an animal control officer who allegedly rear ended a woman, a city employee that allegedly backed up into a man turning into his driveway, a pair of citizen volunteer patrol members who allegedly turned into a woman on a bicycle, and a parks employee who allegedly ran over a man sleeping in the park. The injuries claimed ranged from soft tissue injuries to major hip injuries. I also defended cities in dangerous condition of public property cases involving motor vehicles and catastrophic injuries, including the death of a motorcyclist, and another one where the passenger on a motorcycle was injured when the motorcyclist ran a stop sign.

A defense to the owner of a vehicle, where the driver and owner lack an employee-employer or principal-agent relationship, is Vehicle Code section 17151(a). Typically, the cases listed above involved a a employer-employee relationship. Vehicle Code section 17151(a) reads:

The liability of an owner, bailee of an owner, or personal representative of a decedent imposed by this chapter and not arising through the relationship of principal and agent or master and servant is limited to the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for the death of or injury to one person in any one accident and, subject to the limit as to one person, is limited to the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for the death of or injury to more than one person in any one accident and is limited to the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for damage to property of others in any one accident.

Also not included within this statute is negligent entrustment or negligent maintenance of the vehicle by the owner. There is no limit on the liability of an owner under common law.

In a very recent California Supreme Court case, the Court held that the “respondeat superior doctrine makes an employer liable, irrespective of fault, for an employee’s tortious conduct in the scope of employment.” Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 443, 449. “If the employee did not drive negligently, and thus is zero percent at fault, then the employer’s share of fault is zero percent. That is true even if the employer entrusted its vehicle to an employee whom it knew, or should have known, to be a habitually careless driver with a history of accidents.” Id. at 453-454.

A: 300 E. State St. Suite 517

Redlands CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 708-6055

Filed under Automobile Accidents, Bicycle Accident, Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Dangerous Intersection, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Municipal Law, Park Accident, Pedestrian Accident, Personal Injury Law Tagged with Michael Reiter Attorney at Law, permissive use, respondeat superior, vicarious laibility

When is a Government Claim (formerly Tort Claims) required in California?

June 22, 2011 Leave a comment

When I became an attorney in December 1998, government claims were referred to as “tort claims”. That all changed with these words by the California Supreme Court in late 2007:

We also adopt the practice of referring to the claims statutes as the “Government Claims Act,” to avoid the confusion engendered by the informal short title “Tort Claims Act.” City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 734.

The reason was the change is that the Act involves things other than torts, including contract actions. When in doubt, file a timely claim with all the required information.

California Government Code section 900 et seq. governs the claim requirements against California public entities (the State of California and local public entities). This is an overview of the requirement for a government claim, and is not an exhaustive look at the process. Seek appropriate legal assistance for your particular circumstance. I will explore some areas in depth at later times.

Certain causes of action do not require a government claim to be presented The following do not require a government claim to be presented to the public entity as a prerequisite to a civil action. False Claims Act (qui tam) do not require a Government Claim. Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1213 (as modified on denial of rehearing). Federal civil rights actions under the Civil Rights Act do not require a government claim. Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 842. Government Code section 905 exempts claims under the Revenue and Taxation Code (subsection a); claims related to a “filing of a lien, statement of claim, or stop notice is required under law relating to liens of mechanics, laborers , or charges related thereto” (subsection b); claims “by public employees for fees, salaries, wages, mileage or other expenses and allowances” (subsection c); workers’ compensation (subsection d); public assistance (subsection e); public retirement or pensions (subsection f); principal or interest on warrants, bonds, notes, or other indebtedness (subsection g); claims related to special assessments as a result of a lien (subsection h); claims by the state or by a state department or by a local public agency or judicial branch entity (though the public entity can require a claim) (subsection i); unemployment insurance (subsection j); recovery of penalties and forfeitures under Labor Code section 1720 et seq. (subsection k); claims regarding the Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960 (subsection l); claims for the recovery of Civil Code section 340.1 damages regarding childhood sexual abuse regarding conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2009 (subsection m); claims for the recovery of money pursuant to Government Code section 26680 pursuant to Civil Code section 701.820 (subsection n). Government Code section 905.1 specifically exempts inverse condemnation cases from the presentment requirement of Government Code section 905, except that the entity should process the claim if presented.

A big warning: local agencies are allowed to adopt their own claims requirements pursuant to Government Code 935 with certain preemption by state law. For example, the City of San Bernardino’s claim ordinance is found at Chapter 3.16 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. The City of Highland’s procedures are found at Chapter 3.08 of the Highland Municipal Code. The City of Riverside’s claim ordinance is found at Chapter 1.05 of the Riverside Municipal Code. Ontario’s is found at Title 3, Chapter 2 of the Ontario Municipal Code.

Milligan, Beswick, Levine & Knox, LLP

A: 1447 Ford St. #201

Redlands, CA 92374

T: (909) 296-6708

E: mreiter@mblklaw.org

Is Devore in the City of San Bernardino? Or, how to find if San Bernardino County land is incorporated or unicorporated?

April 25, 2011 Leave a comment

One of the highest keyword requests regarding the search term “San Bernardino” is finding out what geographic locations are included in a particular jurisdiction. One such search is “Is Devore in the City of San Bernardino?” Why would someone want to know if a particular place is in a certain jurisdiction? Here are some reasons:

1. The amount of taxes. Different locations in California can have different sales tax rates. At this moment, the City of San Bernardino’s sales tax rate is 9%. The City of Redlands’ rate is 8.75% Similarly,the amount of transient occupancy tax. This is sometimes called a “bed” tax, the amount a hotel or motel collects based on the lodging’s nightly rate. There are often different rates between cities, and between incorporated areas and unincorporated areas.

2. Liability. If someone tripped and fell on a sidewalk, or hit a pothole, that person would need to know which entity to file a government claim with, and should the claim be rejected, against which entity to sue in court. Of course, sometimes it does not involve a government entity, and sometimes it involves more than one entity, so knowing where the public property is located is only part of the inquiry. Government Code section 835 (discussed briefly here) requires ownership or control of the property. Just because property is within an entity does not mean it belongs to the city or county. It could belong to private entities or to another public agency, like a school district, a flood control district, a water agency, or a combination of agencies and private ownership. When I was a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Bernardino, I had a case where the location, according to conventional maps, was right on the border of the City of Highland and the City of San Bernardino. When I was the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Redlands, I had a case that involved a City easement on Redlands Unified School District property, adjacent to private agricultural land.

3. Voting. Obviously, someone cannot vote if they are not with the corporate limits of the municipality.

4. Business Licenses.

5. Which set of local laws apply. This is important for land use, zoning and code enforcement law.

So, how do we find out if Devore is within the City of San Bernardino or unincorporated County of San Bernardino. One good way used to be the website of the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Bernardino, commonly abbreviated as LAFCO (and pronounced Laugh Co). LAFCOs are county-wide organizations governed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000, found at Government Code section 56000, et seq. However, LAFCO’s maps are currently unavailable as of this writing. San Bernardino County LAFCO can tell you the jurisdiction or jurisdictions of a particular place. An interested party can call them, or if you need a map, make a California Public Records Act request. If an interested party makes a Public Records Act request, they should ask for a record. Such as, “a map that shows the jurisdictional boundaries of x location.” Remember, the California Public Records Act is for records, not for general information. Agencies do not have to answer questions, though sometimes it is easier to do so and they will do so in lieu of producing a record.

That means that someone can try to find out by looking in the City of San Bernardino’s website, and the County of San Bernardino’s website. On the City of San Bernardino’s website, we find the Ward map, which shows the current division of the City for each council member. Devore is generally thought of being where the 215 and the 15 meet. You can see on the Ward map that location is not in the City of San Bernardino. If we are to believe Google Maps, which is far from determinative, it shows the shaded northwest border of the City of San Bernardino a few parcels away from Devore Road.

What about the County of San Bernardino? The County has a Geographical Information Services (GIS) component to its Information Services Department. I know I have used their mapping applications in the past, but they do not appear to be online at this time.

The short answer is, from my experience as a Deputy City Attorney in the San Bernardino City Attorney’s Office, from having gone to public school with people from Devore, and as a matter of common knowledge, Devore is in unincorporated San Bernardino County.

A: 300 E. State St., Suite 517

Redlands, CA 92373-5235

T: (909) 296-6708