What is the test for liability of a public entity for failing to take precautions to protect a person from injury?

Public entity liability for an act or omission is governed exclusively by statute. ( 815, subd. (a).) "Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property...." ( 835, italics added.) The introductory phrase to section 835 makes clear that another statute can preclude the imposition of liability on a public entity by providing an absolute immunity. (McCauley v. City of San Diego (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 981, 992, 235 Cal.Rptr. 732.) A " dangerous condition means a condition of property that creates a substantial ... risk of injury when such property ... is used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used." ( 830, subd. (a).) The plaintiff is required to establish only "that the condition ... creates a substantial risk of harm when used with due care by the public generally...." (Murrell v. State ex rel Dep't of Pub. Works (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 264, 267, 120 Cal.Rptr. 812.)

[242 Cal.App.4th 468]

" Thus, even though it is foreseeable that persons may use public property without due care, a public entity may not be held liable for failing to take precautions to protect such persons. [Citations.] Any property can be dangerous if used in a sufficiently abnormal manner; a public entity is required only to make its property safe for reasonably foreseeable careful use." (Mathews v. City of Cerritos (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1384, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 16.) For example, in Fredette v. City of Long Beach (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 122, 231 Cal.Rptr. 598, which involved a diving accident, the court said, "the absence of the gangplank and the shallowness of the water between the pier and the float were apparent to all users. The physical characteristics of the facility gave immediate notice to those persons exercising due care that diving from the pier was, in and of itself, a hazardous activity that should be avoided. We think it clear that no member of the public may ignore the notice which the condition itself provides." (Id. at p. 132, 231 Cal.Rptr. 598.)