This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Civil Litigation,
Construction

Apr. 4, 2019

Ruling highlights rationale of the design immunity defense

Here’s a brain-twister: Can you knowingly approve something, which does not include something else, if you never considered the absence of that “something else”? Think about that for a moment... or better yet, just read on.

Garret D. Murai

Partner
Nomos LLP

Garret is the editor of the California Construction Law Blog at www.calconstructionlawblog.com.

See more...

Ruling highlights rationale of the design immunity defense
Shutterstock

CONSTRUCTION CORNER

In Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation, 21 Cal. App. 5th 947 (2018), the 5th District Court of Appeal considered the following brain-twister: Can you knowingly approve something, which does not include something else, if you never considered the absence of that "something else"?...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up