What is the test for determining whether a public entity was responsible for the damage caused by the flooding of the Amador River?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Amador Valley Investors v. City of Livermore, 117 Cal.Rptr. 749, 43 Cal.App.3d 483 (Cal. App. 1974):
[43 Cal.App.3d 493] It is, of course, recognized that the conduct of the public entity must be shown to have been the proximate cause of the damage. (Youngblood v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 603, 610, 15 Cal.Rptr. 904, 364 P.2d 840; Granone v. County of Los Angeles (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 629, 649, 42 Cal.Rptr. 34.) Here, the City advanced the theory, supported by evidence, that the water which prevented Amador from carrying out its
Page 755
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
