What is the test for determining whether a statute imposes direct liability on a defendant public entity?

A court first determines whether a statute "imposes direct liability" on a defendant public entity. Munoz v. City of Union City, 120 Cal. App. 4th 1077, 1111 (2004). "[D]irect tort liability of public entities must be based on a specific statute declaring them to be liable, or at least creating some specific duty of care, and not on the general tort provisions of [California] Civil Code section 1714." Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority, 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1183 (2003). "In the absence of a constitutional requirement, public entities may be held liable only if a statute (not including a charter provision, ordinance or regulation) is found declaring them to be liable. ... [T]he practical effect of this section is to eliminate any common law governmental liability for damages arising out of torts." Thompson v. City of Lake Elsinore, 18 Cal. App. 4th 49, 62 (1993). In addition, although "public entities always act through individuals, that does not convert a claim for direct negligence into one based on vicarious liability." Munoz, 120 Cal. App. 4th at 1113.