There appear to be a growing number of claims against the City of Richmond for damages to vehicles caused by potholes. All of these are 

routinely denied based on the defense that the City had no constructive notice of a pothole (and presumably did not have time to repair it). 

The constructive notice defense is based on Government Code Section 835, copied below. The City uses the arbitrary time of 48 hours as the

minimum notice it needs to address a pothole repair.

So, if you ever want to have a prayer of successfully processing a claim through the City for damage caused by a pothole, someone has to 

have gone on the record as reporting the existence of the pothole at least 48 hours in advance of the damage occurring. Presumably, this 

would also apply to any other potentially dangerous aspect of the City infrastructure such as sewers, public buildings, parks, etc.

CALIFORNIA CODES

GOVERNMENT CODE

SECTION 835-835.4

835.  Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for

injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the

plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition

at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by

the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a

reasonably forseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred,

and that either:

   (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the

public entity within the scope of his employment created the

dangerous condition; or

   (b) The public entity had actual or constructive notice of the

dangerous condition under Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to

the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous

condition.

835.2.  (a) A public entity had actual notice of a dangerous

condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 if it

had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or

should have known of its dangerous character.

   (b) A public entity had constructive notice of a dangerous

condition within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 835 only

if the plaintiff establishes that the condition had existed for such

a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the public

entity, in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the

condition and its dangerous character.  On the issue of due care,

admissible evidence includes but is not limited to evidence as to:

   (1) Whether the existence of the condition and its dangerous

character would have been discovered by an inspection system that was

reasonably adequate (considering the practicability and cost of

inspection weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of the

potential danger to which failure to inspect would give rise) to

inform the public entity whether the property was safe for the use or

uses for which the public entity used or intended others to use the

public property and for uses that the public entity actually knew

others were making of the public property or adjacent property.

   (2) Whether the public entity maintained and operated such an

inspection system with due care and did not discover the condition.

835.4.  (a) A public entity is not liable under subdivision (a) of

Section 835 for injury caused by a condition of its property if the

public entity establishes that the act or omission that created the

condition was reasonable.  The reasonableness of the act or omission

that created the condition shall be determined by weighing the

probability and gravity of potential injury to persons and property

foreseeably exposed to the risk of injury against the practicability

and cost of taking alternative action that would not create the risk

of injury or of protecting against the risk of injury.

   (b) A public entity is not liable under subdivision (b) of Section

835 for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if

the public entity establishes that the action it took to protect

against the risk of injury created by the condition or its failure to

take such action was reasonable.  The reasonableness of the action

or inaction of the public entity shall be determined by taking into

consideration the time and opportunity it had to take action and by

weighing the probability and gravity of potential injury to persons

and property foreseeably exposed to the risk of injury against the

practicability and cost of protecting against the risk of such

injury.