Government Immunities in California — and the Key Exceptions That Matter in Property Damage Cases

Intro

When large-scale property damage is tied to public infrastructure or government action, affected owners are often told that “the government is immune.” While California law does provide broad immunities to public entities, those protections are not absolute. In mass tort, wildfire, flooding, and debris-flow cases, liability frequently turns on whether an exception applies—or whether the claim falls outside immunity altogether. Presidio Law Firm LLP represents property owners in cases where understanding the limits of government immunity is essential to recovery.

Why Government Immunity Exists

Government immunity is designed to allow public entities to perform essential functions without constant exposure to liability. California’s Government Claims Act codifies numerous immunities intended to protect discretionary decision-making, policy formulation, and budgetary judgment.

These protections, however, coexist with constitutional obligations and statutory exceptions that preserve accountability where public actions cause private harm.

The Critical Distinction: Tort Claims vs. Constitutional Claims

One of the most important—and often misunderstood—distinctions is between tort liability and inverse condemnation.

Most statutory immunities apply to tort claims such as negligence. Inverse condemnation claims arise from the California Constitution, not tort law. As a result, many traditional immunities do not bar inverse condemnation liability.

This distinction is central to mass tort cases involving public infrastructure.

Inverse Condemnation Is Not Barred by Tort Immunities

Public entities cannot invoke statutory tort immunities to avoid inverse condemnation claims. If public infrastructure or public use substantially causes damage to private property, constitutional compensation principles apply regardless of fault or immunity defenses.

This is why inverse condemnation often becomes the primary recovery vehicle in disaster-related property damage cases.

Design Immunity and Its Limits

One commonly asserted defense is design immunity, which protects public entities from liability arising from approved design plans.

Design immunity, however, is not absolute. It does not apply where:

• The design was not properly approved
• The design became dangerous due to changed conditions
• The public entity failed to warn of known hazards

Moreover, design immunity does not defeat inverse condemnation claims where the design itself caused foreseeable property damage.

Discretionary Act Immunity

Discretionary immunity protects high-level policy decisions, not operational failures. Courts distinguish between discretionary planning decisions and ministerial or operational acts.

In infrastructure cases, failure to maintain, repair, or operate public improvements safely may fall outside discretionary immunity.

Flood Control and Drainage Immunities

Flooding cases often involve asserted immunities related to flood control or stormwater management. While certain immunities exist, they do not automatically shield public entities where infrastructure altered natural water flow in a manner that foreseeably damaged private property.

Inverse condemnation frequently overrides these defenses when public works shift burdens onto individual landowners.

Emergency Response and Firefighting Immunities

Public entities often assert immunity for emergency response actions, including firefighting decisions. These immunities can bar negligence claims arising from tactical decisions during emergencies.

However, where property damage is caused by public infrastructure rather than response decisions, immunity may not apply. The distinction between causation and response is often dispositive.

Claims Presentation Requirements Still Apply

Even where immunity does not bar liability, procedural requirements remain critical. Tort claims against public entities require timely government claims filings.

Inverse condemnation claims generally do not require government claims presentation, but strategic coordination between claims is essential to avoid waiver or dismissal.

Why Immunity Arguments Often Drive Early Motions

Government defendants frequently raise immunity defenses early to narrow claims or force dismissal. Understanding which claims survive—and why—shapes litigation strategy from the outset.

Early expert analysis and careful pleading are often necessary to avoid premature dismissal.

Why Immunity Does Not Mean No Accountability

Government immunity limits how claims are brought, not whether harm must be compensated. California law balances public necessity with constitutional fairness.

Where public improvements impose disproportionate burdens on individual property owners, the law provides remedies—even against public entities.

Strategic Implications for Property Owners

Property owners who assume immunity bars recovery often fail to pursue viable claims. Conversely, misframing claims as negligence alone can unnecessarily invite immunity defenses.

Strategic use of inverse condemnation and properly framed tort claims preserves leverage and recovery options.

Closing

Government immunity is a powerful defense—but it is not absolute. In California property damage cases, the line between immunity and liability often depends on whether harm arose from public use, infrastructure, or protected policy decisions. Presidio Law Firm LLP represents property owners in mass tort and inverse condemnation cases with a clear understanding of how immunities apply, where they end, and how constitutional principles preserve accountability when public actions damage private property.