Source: http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/LiabilityCA.html
Timestamp: 2014-04-18 08:02:15
Document Index: 342901574

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 811', '§ 835', '§ 830', '§ 818', '§ 830', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 846', '§ 846', '§ 846', '§ 14662', '§ 846', '§ 831', '§ 128', '§ 813', '§ 1007', '§ 830', '§ 831', '§ 846', '§1009', '§ 5075']

Protection From Liability: Promotw Use And Development Of Recreational Trails and Greenways planning, railtrail corridor study, recreation path system, linear National state park, develop process public input, adjacent landowner, state federal agency partnership, ADA news, wheelchair and disabled, mobility device, Forest Service Accessibility Guidelines, FSTAG, American federal right-of-way abandoned, hiking, bicycle, pedestrian, study, link system connect Section 508 Navigation
Protection From Liability: Promoting The Use And Development Of Recreational Trails Presented at the 15th National Trails Symposium , Redding, California, September 21-24, 2000.
The Courts and the Legislature have expressed a clear policy to permit the use of available recreational property, both public and private, in its natural condition, without placing the burden and expense of altering the property and defending claims for injuries on the landowner. Council of State Governments, Public Recreation on Private Lands: Limitations on Liability, 24 Suggested State Legislation 150 (1965) &endash; A model recreational use statute, adopted in some form by most states. ROBIN CHERYL MILLER, JD, (The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company 1996), Effect of Statute Limiting Landowner's Liability for Personal Injury to Recreational User, 47 A.L.R.4th 262 (1986) &endash; an annotation of state and federal cases across the nation discussing and analyzing recreational liability issues. II. RECREATIONAL USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Applies to a Public Entity. CA Gov't Code § 811.2 defines the term "public entity" to include, "the State, the Regents of the University of California, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State." Creates statutory liability but must be read against the background of general tort liability. Does not affect contractual obligations or rights to relief other than money or damages. 2. Liability for dangerous condition of property &endash; CA Gov't Code § 835
What is a dangerous condition of property? CA Gov't Code § 830(a). Conditions on adjoining property &endash; a dangerous condition may be established if a substantial risk of injury to adjacent property or to persons on adjacent property is present. Liability may also be imposed if a condition on adjacent property exposes those using the public property to a substantial risk of injury. Plaintiff's obligation to establish a duty of care - no liability for injuries caused solely by third parties on public property. See Swaner v. City of Santa Monica 150 Cal.App.3d 789 (1984); Gray v. America West Airlines, Inc. 209 Cal.App.3d 76 (1989); and State v. Superior Court 32 Cal.App.4th 325 (1995). Must be foreseeable. See Schonfeldt v. State 61 Cal.App.4th 1462 (1998). Remedial action is not evidence of dangerous condition. 3. No punitive damages &endash; CA Gov't Code § 818 B. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES RELATING TO RECREATIONAL TRAIL USE
Public entity is protected against a claim of dangerous condition that is inherent in the officially approved plan or design of construction or improvement of the public property if: (a) Injury caused by approved feature of plan;
This immunity can be lost with a showing of changed condition coupled with notice to the public entity. See Compton v. City of Santee 12 Cal.App.4th 591 (1993). Watch out for the "Trap Exception". See CA Gov't Code § 830.8. Does not include temporary dangerous condition created during construction. See Winig v. State 37 Cal.App.4th 1772 (1995), rev. denied. 3. Immunity for hazardous recreational activities (CA Gov't Code § 831.7).
(a) What activities are considered hazardous in California? CA Gov't Code § 831.7(b) specifically includes trail activities such as animal riding, bicycle racing or jumping, and as of late 1995, mountain bicycling. Activities specified in CA Gov't Code § 831.7(b) are not exhaustive. (b) Exceptions to hazardous recreational activity immunity:(1) Failure to warn of a known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational activity that was not assumed by the participant as inherently part of the activity (CA Gov't Code § 831.7(c)(1)).
(4) Negligent failure to properly construct and maintain in good repair any structure, recreational equipment or machinery, or substantial work of improvement (CA Gov't Code § 831.7(c)(3). 4. Immunity for natural condition of unimproved property (CA Gov't Code § 831.2) - when users leave the trail.
When does unimproved property become improved? III. RECREATIONAL USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
1. Immunity under CA Gov't Code § 831.4 also protects private grantor of an easement. 2. California Civil Code § 846 provides that a private landowner (or one having any possessory interest in land) owes no duty to those who comes upon his/her property for "any recreational purposes". This applies to both trespassers and permittees but not to express invitees. See Delta Farms Reclamation District No. 2028 v. Superior Court 33 Cal.3d 699 (1983), cert. denied.
This immunity protects private landowner (and Federal Government) only. Define entering property for "any recreational purposes". See Ornelas v. Randolph 4 Cal.4th 1095 (1993). It doesn't matter what the injured party is doing at the time of the incident. Protection applies in California to lands that are fenced as well as those that are made more intentionally accessible. See Ornelas v. Randolph 4 Cal.4th 1095 (1993). But, Utah sees it differently. See Perrine v. Kennecott Mining 911 P2d 1290 (Supreme Court of Utah 1996). The land does not have to be suitable for recreational purposes. See Colvin v. Southern California Edison 194 Cal.App.3d 1306 (1987). Immunity is not lost by (1) limiting permission to enter property (See Mansion v. U.S., 945 F.2d 1115 (9th Cir. 1991)) or (2) by issuing a general invitation to members of the public to visit for an event. See Ravell v. U.S., 22 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 1994). Protection is not limited to injuries caused directly by a condition of the land. See Shipman v. Boething Treeland Farms, Inc. 77 Cal.App.4th 1424 (2000). 3. Protection of § 846 not available if: (a) There is willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity. A duty arises when you know about prior injuries caused by the same condition. Attempts to guard or warn against known dangers have to be reasonable only. See Bacon v. Southern California Edison 53 Cal.App.4th 854 (1997);
Regarding the limitations of (b) and (c), the court in Johnson v. Unocal, 21 Cal.App.4th 310 (1993), held that allowing a company picnic did not constitute an express invitation. Further, requiring a hold harmless agreement and trash pick up in exchange for allowing the picnic, was not consideration to the landowner such that the immunity did not apply. Invitation does not have to be for a recreational purpose. Calhoon v. Lewis 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 (2000) &endash; friend invited to come pick up property owner's son; injured on skateboard while waiting. 4. Right to Reimbursement of Legal Fees: California Civil Code § 846.1
The basic rule of landowner liability is also limited in the context of active sports under the primary assumption of risk doctrine. See Rowland v. Christian 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968). This doctrine covers activities done for enjoyment or thrill, requiring physical exertion as well as elements of skill involving a challenge containing a potential risk of injury. See Bjork v. Mason 77 Cal.App.4th, 544 (2000). No duty to eliminate or protect against risks inherent in a sport or activity. Duty not to increase risks over and above those inherent in the sport. See Calhoon v. Lewis 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 (2000). B. COMPARATIVE FAULT
Public entity may agree to indemnify private landowners for public access trails and/or free recreational activities. See CA Gov't Code §§ 14662.5 and 51238.5. Also see 78 Op. Cal. Atty. Gen. 238 July 27, 1995. VI. A REMEDY FOR FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS
California Civil Code § 846.1 &endash; Private parties have not taken full advantage of their remedies. California Government Code § 831.5 expands definition of private parties for recovery under Civil Code section 846.1. California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.7 and 1038 both allow for sanctions under certain circumstances. VII. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED DEDICATION OF PUBLIC EASEMENT
A public easement arises only by dedication. Not under the common law of prescription. See Friends of the Trails v. Blasius 78 Cal.App.4th 810 (2000); and People v. Sayig (1951) 101 Cal.App.2d 890 (1951). Dedication implied in fact vs. implied by law See Brumbaugh v. County of Imperial 134 Cal. App. 3d 556 (1982); and Union Transp. Co. v. Sacramento County 42 Cal.2d 235 (1954). Affirmative acts or acquiescence of the property owner. Uninterrupted public use for more than five years without substantial interference from the property owner. Produce evidence that the public used the land as they would have used public land. Post March 4, 1972 - no more dedication implied by law. See CA Civil Code §§ 813, 1008 and 1009. These statutes only affect rights vested after 1971. Cannot acquire any rights to public lands by prescription or implied dedication. See CA Civil Code § 1007. LANGUAGE FROM THE RELEVANT STATUTES California Government Code § 830.6 - Plan or design of, or improvement to, public property; remedial work; warnings.
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the plan or design of a construction of, or an improvement to, public property where such plan or design has been approved in advance of the construction or improvement by the legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved, if the trial or appellate court determines that there is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which (a) a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan or design or the standards therefor or (b) a reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have approved the plan or design or the standards therefor. Notwithstanding notice that constructed or improved public property may no longer be in conformity with a plan or design or a standard which reasonably could be approved by the legislative body or other body or employee, the immunity provided by this section shall continue for a reasonable period of time sufficient to permit the public entity to obtain funds for and carry out remedial work necessary to allow such public property to be in conformity with a plan or design approved by the legislative body of the public entity or other body or employee or with a plan or design in conformity with a standard previously approved by such legislative body or other body or employee. In the event that the public entity is unable to remedy such public property because of practical impossibility or lack of sufficient funds, the immunity provided by this section shall remain so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of the condition not conforming to the approved plan or design or to the approved standard. However, where a person fails to heed such warning or occupies public property despite such warning, such failure or occupation shall not in itself constitute an assumption of the risk of the danger indicated by the warning.
Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for any injury caused by a natural condition of any unimproved public property, including but not limited to any natural condition of any lake, stream, bay, river or beach. California Government Code § 831.4 - Unpaved access roads to recreational or scenic areas; trails; paved paths on easements of way granted to public entities.
A public entity, public employee, or a grantor of a public easement to a public entity for any of the following purposes, is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of: (a) Any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas and which is not a (1) city street or highway or (2) county, state or federal highway or (3) public street or highway of a joint highway district, boulevard district, bridge and highway district or similar district formed for the improvement or building of public streets or highways.
(2) Any form of diving into water from other than a diving board or diving platform, or at any place or from any structure where diving is prohibited and reasonable warning thereof has been given. (3) Animal riding, including equestrian competition, archery, bicycle racing or jumping, mountain bicycling, boating, cross-country and downhill skiing, hang gliding, kayaking, motorized vehicle racing, off-road motorcycling or four-wheel driving of any kind, orienteering, pistol and rifle shooting, rock climbing, rocketeering, rodeo, spelunking, sky diving, sport parachuting, paragliding, body contact sports (i.e., sports in which it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be rough bodily contact with one or more participants), surfing, trampolining, tree climbing, tree rope swinging, water-skiing, white water rafting, and wind surfing. For the purposes of this subdivision, "mountain bicycling" does not include riding a bicycle on paved pathways, roadways, or sidewalks. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a), this section does not limit liability which would otherwise exist for any of the following: (1) Failure of the public entity or employee to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational activity known to the public entity or employee that is not reasonably assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose. (2) Damage or injury suffered in any case where permission to participate in the hazardous recreational activity was granted for a specific fee. For the purpose of this paragraph, a "specific fee" does not include a fee or consideration charged for a general purpose such as a general park admission charge, a vehicle entry or parking fee, or an administrative or group use application or permit fee, as distinguished from a specific fee charged for participation in the specific hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose. (3) Injury suffered to the extent proximately caused by the negligent failure of the public entity or public employee to properly construct or maintain in good repair any structure, recreational equipment or machinery, or substantial work of improvement utilized in the hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury arose. (4) Damage or injury suffered in any case where the public entity or employee recklessly or with gross negligence promoted the participation in or observance of a hazardous recreational activity. For purposes of this paragraph, promotional literature or a public announcement or advertisement which merely describes the available facilities and services on the property does not in itself constitute a reckless or grossly negligent promotion. (5) An act of gross negligence by a public entity or a public employee which is the proximate cause of the injury. Nothing in this subdivision creates a duty of care or basis of liability for personal injury or for damage to personal property. (d) Nothing in this section shall limit the liability of an independent concessionaire, or any person or organization other than the public entity, whether or not the person or organization has a contractual relationship with the public entity to use the public property, for injuries or damages suffered in any case as a result of the operation of a hazardous recreational activity on public property by the concessionaire, person, or organization.
The holder of record title to land may record in the office of the recorder of any county in which any part of the land is situated, a description of said land and a notice reading substantially as follows: "The right of the public or any person to make use whatsoever of the above described land or any portion thereof (other than any use expressly allowed by a written or recorded map, agreement, deed or dedication) is by permission, and subject to control, of owner: Section 813, Civil Code." The recorded notice is conclusive evidence that subsequent use of the land during the time such notice is in effect by the public or any user for any purpose (other than any use expressly allowed by a written or recorded map, agreement, deed or dedication) is permissive and with consent in any judicial proceeding involving the issue as to whether all or any portion of such land has been dedicated to public use or whether any user has a prescriptive right in such land or any portion thereof. The notice may be revoked by the holder of record title by recording a notice of revocation in the office of the recorder wherein the notice is recorded. After recording a notice pursuant to this section, and prior to any revocation thereof, the owner shall not prevent any public use appropriate thereto by physical obstruction, notice or otherwise. In the event of use by other than the general public, any such notices, to be effective, shall also be served by registered mail on the user. The recording of a notice pursuant to this section shall not be deemed to affect rights vested at the time of recording. The permission for public use of real property provided for in such a recorded notice may be conditioned upon reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of such public use, and no use in violation of such restrictions shall be considered public use for purposes of a finding of implied dedication. Leg.H. 1963 ch. 735, 1971 ch. 941. California Civil Code § 846 - Owner's Liability to Recreational Users.
An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purpose, except as provided in this section. A "recreational purpose," as used in this section, includes such activities as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, spelunking, sport parachuting, riding, including animal riding, snowmobiling, and all other types of vehicular riding, rock collecting, sightseeing, picnicking, nature study, nature contacting, recreational gardening, gleaning, hang gliding, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or scientific sites. An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, who gives permission to another for entry or use for the above purpose upon the premises does not thereby (a) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or (b) constitute the person to whom permission has been granted the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (c) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of such person to whom permission had been granted except as provided in this section. This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists (a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state, or where consideration has been received from others for the same purpose; or (c) to any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner. Nothing in this section creates a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to person or property. California Civil Code 846.1 - Administrative Claim for Attorneys' Fees by Public Entity or by Owner in Contractual Relationship with Public or Nonprofit Agency &endash; Underlying Action Brought by Recreational User.
California Civil Code §1009 - Means of Protecting Owners of Private Real Property Who Make Lands Available for Public Use. (a) The Legislature finds that:(1) It is in the best interests of the state to encourage owners of private real property to continue to make their lands available for public recreational use to supplement opportunities available on tax-supported publicly owned facilities. (2) Owners of private real property are confronted with the threat of loss of rights in their property if they allow or continue to allow members of the public to use, enjoy or pass over their property for recreational purposes.
(g) The permission for public use of real property referred to in subdivision (f) may be conditioned upon reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of such public use, and no use in violation of such restrictions shall be considered public use for purposes of a finding of implied dedication. Leg.H. 1971 ch. 941. California Public Resources Code § 5075.4 - Liability of Adjoining Property Owners.
(a) Every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise provided by law, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party. (b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met: (1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. (2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. (3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. (4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. (c) If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. In determining what sanctions, if any, should be ordered, the court shall consider whether a party seeking sanctions has exercised due diligence�
(a) In any civil proceeding under the California Tort Claims Act or for express or implied indemnity or for contribution in any civil action, the court, upon motion of the defendant or cross-defendant, shall, at the time of the granting of any summary judgment, motion for directed verdict, motion for judgment under Section 631.8, or any nonsuit dismissing the moving party other than the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor, or at a later time set forth by rule of the Judicial Council adopted under Section 1034 determine whether or not the plaintiff, petitioner, cross-complainant, or intervenor brought the proceeding with reasonable cause and in the good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy under the facts and law which warranted the filing of the complaint, petition, cross-complaint, or complaint in intervention. If the court should determine that the proceeding was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause, an additional issue shall be decided as to the defense costs reasonably and necessarily incurred by the party or parties opposing the proceeding, and the court shall render judgment in favor of that party in the amount of all reasonable and necessary defense costs, in addition to those costs normally awarded to the prevailing party. An award of defense costs under this section shall not be made except on notice contained in a party's papers and an opportunity to be heard. (b) "Defense costs," as used in this section, shall include reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, the expense of services of experts, advisers, and consultants in defense of the proceeding, and where reasonably and necessarily incurred in defending the proceeding�
For more information, contact Margie Coffin Brown, Historical Landscape Architect, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National Park Service: Margie_coffin@nps.gov Related topics: