CACI 1104 Inspection System (Gov. Code, § 835.2(b)(1) & (2))
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
1104 Inspection System (Gov. Code, § 835.2(b)(1) & (2))
In deciding whether [name of defendant] should have discovered the dangerous condition, you may consider whether it had a reasonable inspection system and whether a reasonable system would have revealed the dangerous condition.
[In determining whether an inspection system is reasonable, you may consider the practicality and cost of the system and balance those factors against the likelihood and seriousness of the potential danger if no such system existed.]
[and/or]
[If [name of defendant] had a reasonable inspection system but did not detect the dangerous condition, you may consider whether it used reasonable care in maintaining and operating the system.]
Directions for Use
Read the first paragraph and one or both of the bracketed paragraphs as appropriate to the facts.
Sources and Authority
•Admissible Evidence of Due Care. Government Code section 835.2(b).
•“Constructive notice may be found where the dangerous condition would have been discovered by a reasonable inspection.” (Straughter v. State of California (1976) 89 Cal.App.3d 102, 109 [152 Cal.Rptr. 147], citing to Stanford v. City of Ontario (1972) 6 Cal.3d 870, 882 [101 Cal.Rptr. 97, 495 P.2d 425].)
•“The questions of whether a dangerous condition could have been discovered by reasonable inspection and whether there was adequate time for preventive measures are properly left to the jury.” (Carson v. Facilities Development Co. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 830, 843 [206 Cal.Rptr. 136, 686 P.2d 656], internal citations omitted.)
•“Although judicial decisions do not always link the issue of constructive notice to the reasonable inspection system … , the Tort Claims Act indicates that, absent other persuasive evidence, the relationship between constructive notice and inspection may be crucial.” (California Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 1992), § 3.37.)