CALIFORNIA LEGAL CODE

California Government Code § 835

Dangerous Condition of Public Property

PUBLISHED · UPDATED

Under California Government Code § 835, a public entity can be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its property — a broken sidewalk, unsafe road, or hazardous public building — if the entity created the hazard or had notice of it in time to fix it. These claims require a government claim within six months.

Reviewed against the current statutory text at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. This page is legal information, not legal advice.

Exact Statute Text

835. Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee… created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition… a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against [it].

Read the full, current section at the official source: Cal. Gov. Code § 835 (leginfo).

In Plain English

  • Public-entity liability: a city, county, or state can be liable for a dangerous condition of its property.
  • What you must show: a dangerous condition, proximate causation, foreseeable risk, and either entity-created hazard or notice.
  • Notice: the entity must have created the hazard or had actual/constructive notice with time to fix it.
  • Strict deadline: a government claim must be filed within six months (Gov. Code § 911.2).

Key Terms Defined

Dangerous condition

A condition of public property creating a foreseeable risk of injury when used with due care.

Constructive notice

Notice the entity should have had because the hazard existed long enough to be discovered.

Public entity

A state, county, city, district, or other public agency subject to § 835.

Purpose & Context

Section 835 makes government accountable for hazards on the property it controls, while requiring proof of a dangerous condition and notice. It is the basis for injury claims involving public sidewalks, roads, and buildings.

Real-World Example

A pedestrian trips on a large, long-standing sidewalk defect the city never repaired. Under § 835, the city may be liable if the condition was dangerous and it had notice — but a government claim must be filed within six months of the fall.

Government Code § 835 at a glance

Government Code § 835 at a glance — Source: Cal. Gov. Code §§ 835, 911.2.
ElementWhat must be shown
Dangerous conditionThe property posed a foreseeable risk of injury
CausationThe condition proximately caused the injury
Fault/noticeEntity created the hazard OR had actual/constructive notice
DeadlineGovernment claim within 6 months (§ 911.2)

Why 835 Matters

For injured people & families

When a public hazard hurts you, § 835 provides a path to recovery — but the six-month claim deadline makes acting quickly essential. See our California slip and fall lawyer page.

For defendants

Public entities defend on whether the condition was truly dangerous and whether they had notice with time to act.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue the city for a dangerous sidewalk or road?

Yes, under Government Code § 835, if the property was in a dangerous condition and the entity created it or had notice with time to fix it.

What is the deadline to sue a government entity?

You must file a government claim within six months of the injury (Gov. Code § 911.2) before you can sue.

What does ‘notice’ mean?

The entity either knew of the hazard (actual notice) or should have known because it existed long enough to be found (constructive notice).

Does comparative fault apply?

Yes — your own lack of care can reduce recovery, but not necessarily bar it.

Sources & Legal Authorities

Joseph Shirazi, Managing Partner at Compass Law Group

Joseph Shirazi — Managing Partner · California State Bar #265403

Joseph Shirazi is the Managing Partner of Compass Law Group, LLP, representing injury and abuse survivors throughout California.

Verified profiles: Avvo · Super Lawyers · Justia · Elite Lawyer · LinkedIn · CA State Bar

Legally reviewed by Simon Esfandi, Partner & Co-Founder (CA Bar #275307).

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about California law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Do I have a case?

Contact us today for a free consultation.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

California's
Gold Standard
Injury Law Firm

With Joseph Shirazi and Simon Esfandi at the helm, our firm is a trusted name in accident law in California.

Meet Our Managing Partners

Joseph Shirazi
Managing Partner · CA Bar #265403

National Top 100 Trial Lawyers and Avvo 10.0 Superb. Loyola Law School graduate. Recognized for his $14,500,000 truck accident verdict and a $13,000,000 trial verdict.

Read Full Bio →
Simon Esfandi — Managing Partner
Simon Esfandi
Managing Partner · CA Bar #275307

Super Lawyers Rising Star. Southwestern Law School graduate. Led the firm’s $9,870,000 motorcycle accident settlement and a $2,250,000 rideshare recovery.

Read Full Bio →
Firm Recognition
  • ★ National Top 100 Trial Lawyers
  • ★ Super Lawyers Rising Star
  • ★ Avvo 10.0 Superb Rating
  • ★ Top 40 Under 40
  • ★ Consumer Attorneys of California · CAALA · AAJ
Total Recovered for Clients
$250,000,000+
$14.5M truck verdict · $13M trial verdict · $9.87M motorcycle · $5M car accident
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is unique.
Client Rating
★★★★★ 5.0
193+ verified Google reviews · No win, no fee