Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/trail-immunity-293
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 02:45:17
Document Index: 313469194

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 836', '§ 835', '§ 835', '§ 831', '§831', '§831', '§831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§ 831', '§831', '§ 831', '§831']

What is trail immunity?
Purpose and Scope of the Immunity
Govt. Code section 831.4 provides as follows:
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
city street or highway or
county, state or federal highway or
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.
Any paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk on an easement of way which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access to any unimproved property, so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of any condition of the paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk which constitutes a hazard to health or safety. Warnings required by this subdivision shall only be required where pathways are paved, and such requirement shall not be construed to be a standard of care for any unpaved pathways or roads.”
Gov. Code, § 831.4
The purpose of trail immunity is discussed in Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, as follows:
“This immunity is afforded ‘to encourage public entities to open their property for public recreational use, because 'the burden and expense of putting such property in a safe condition and the expense of defending claims for injuries would probably cause many public entities to close such areas to public use.’” (Armenio v. County of San Mateo (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 413, 417.)
“The trail immunity provided in subdivision (b) of the statute extends to trails that are used for the activities listed in subdivision (a), and to trails that are used solely for access to such activities.” (Treweek v. City of Napa (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 221, 224–229.) “The immunity applies whether or not the trail is paved.” (Armenio, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at 418.)
Immunity under Cal. Gov. Code § 831.4 applies to preclude liability for injury occurring on any unpaved road or trail that is not a street or highway that provides access to recreational or scenic areas.Cal. Gov. Code § 831.4
It precludes liability for injury occurring on any “paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk on an easement of way which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access to any unimproved property, so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of any condition of the paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk . . .”
However, warnings “shall only be required where pathways are paved, and such requirement shall not be construed to be a standard of care for any unpaved pathways or roads.” Cal. Gov. Code § 831.4
Whether the Boardwalk is a recreational trail depends on analysis of three factors:
accepted definitions of the property;
(Amberger-Warren at 1078-1079.)
Other cases have held that Govt. Code § 831.4 applies to bicycle paths similar to the Boardwalk. (See, e.g. Carroll v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 606, 609; Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1099-1100; Armenio v. County of San Mateo (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 413, 418.) Thus, under accepted definitions, the Boardwalk is a trail. Further, it is undisputed that the Boardwalk is used for recreational purposes and to access recreational areas. Trail immunity is promoted by deeming the Boardwalk a trail and promotes important legislative policy of permitting public use of governmental property. (See, e.g. Amberger-Warren at 1085.)
Pursuant to Government Code section 831.4, a public entity is not liable for any injury caused by a condition of trails. The District Court of Appeal has held that the Sepulveda Basin Bikeway is a trail for purposes of trail immunity. (Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1098-1103.)
In Prokop v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1335, the appellate court held that the City had “absolute immunity under Government Code section 831.4 from liability for injuries suffered by a bicyclist who collided with a chain link fence immediately after exiting a class I bikeway located along the Los Angeles River.”
In Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1085, the immunity was applied in the absence of handrail on a trail. The location of the trail was “an integral feature of a trail.”
The lack of warnings or guardrails constitutes a condition of the trail, which does not avoid the trail immunity. Arvizu v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 760, 767.
The installation of guardrails that may be dangerous to bicyclist on the public trail is a condition that triggers the application of Gov. Code, § 831.4.
Useful Rulings on Trail Immunity
Ozeroff vs Bird Rides Inc
Defendant City of San Diego's Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. The demurrer to the first two causes of action is sustained without leave to amend as conceded by Plaintiff. The demurrer to the third cause of action for premises liability is sustained without leave to amend. The City is immune from liability under trail immunity. Govt. Code section 831.4 provides as follows: (a) Any un...
..the improvement or building of public streets or highways. (b) Any trail used for the above purposes. The purpose of trail immunity is discussed in Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, as follows: This immunity is afforded "to encourage public entities to open their property for public recreational use, because 'the burden and expense of putting such property in a sa...
COLLINS VS. CITY OF PITTSBURG
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY CITY OF PITTSBURG * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is Defendant City of Pittsburg’s (“the City”) Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Yolanda Collins’ (“Collins) sole cause of action for premises liability arising from injuries Collins alleges were caused by a fall on uneven pavement at Small World Park in Pittsburg. For the following re...
..there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850. In reviewing the papers, the court should “construe the moving party's affidavits strictly, construe the opponent's affidavits liberally, and resolve doubts about the propriety of granting the motion in favor of the party opposing it.” S...
RONEE BERNS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
Motion for Leave to Amend Answer Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On November 7, 2018, Plaintiff Ronee Berns (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant County of Los Angeles alleging premises liability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on December 4, 2015. On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff named Defendant City of Los Angeles a...
..ive defense of “trail immunity” under Government Code section 831.4. LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of...
MICHELLE LOCKE VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.
Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on 5/15/19 is SUSTAINED as to the 1st count for negligence and the second count for willful failure to warn under Cal. Gov. Code § 836 without leave to amend. Demurrer to the 3rd count for dangerous condition of public property under Cal. Gov. Code § 835 set forth in both the premises liability cause of action and the 2nd cause of action for negligence is O...
..Plaintiff’s ability to prove them, or the possible difficulty in making such proof. Saunders at 840. First Cause of Action The first cause of action for premises liability alleges three counts: negligence, willful failure to warn, and dangerous condition of public property pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 835 (among other Gov. Code Sections). The first “count” for negligence does not assert a statu...
Nealy vs. County of Orange
Demurrer to First Amended Complaint Moving Party: Defendant County of Orange Responding Party: Plaintiff Sean Nealy Ruling: Defendant County of Orange’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. At the time of the accident, “Plaintiff was riding his bicycle on a marked bicycle trail known as the Wagon Wheel Canyon Trail” owned and operated by Defendant County of...
..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 . . . (b) Any trail used for the above purposes. . . .” In the original Complaint, Plaintiff attached his Claim for Money or Damages. (Exhibit A). He admitted that “I was riding my bike on the above path w...
Recent Rulings on Trail Immunity
MCKENZIE, WENDY ET AL VS. CITY OF CHICO
Finally, the Court finds that immunity under Government Code 831.4 is inapplicable here as the alleged dangerous condition is unrelated to the trail itself. The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
BARCLAY, JUDITH VS. CITY OF CHICO
However, the Court finds that Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code Section 831.4. Plaintiff's argument that subsection (c) limits the immunity where Defendant failed to provide adequate warnings is without merit as that subsection applies only to easements granted to a public entity, which is not the case here; the alleged accident occurring on property owned by the Defendant. The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted on this basis.
DAVID MARQUEZ VS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
Section 831.4. Government Code section 831.4, referred to the “trail immunity” statute, provides immunity to public entities for injuries occurring on recreational trails. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) “Whether a property is considered a “trail” under section 831.4 turns on “a number of considerations,” including (1) the accepted definitions of the property, (2) the purpose for which the property is designed and used, and (3) the purpose of the immunity statute.” (Lee v.
IRENE MOYER VS EAST SHORE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK, ET AL.
Defendant demurs to the First Amended Complaint on trail immunity grounds and for failing to state a cause of action against Defendant. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)
The City is immune from liability under trail immunity. Govt.
Code §831.4(b)); Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097 (finding Gov. Code §831.4(b) provides total immunity for any paved or unpaved trail for recreational access or use); Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074 (finding that “path” and “trail” are synonymous for purposes of Gov. Code §831.4(b) and finding that a paved pathway through a dog park qualifies as a recreational purpose under the statute); Lee v.
ROBERT PARCO VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL
DISCUSSION Pursuant to Government Code section 831.4, a public entity is not liable for any injury caused by a condition of trails. The District Court of Appeal has held that the Sepulveda Basin Bikeway is a trail for purposes of trail immunity. (Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1098-1103.) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to immunity. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, waiving any arguments in opposition to the motion. (Sexton v.
CRANE VS. MANGIARACINA
The judge in the federal case reached this conclusion based on the immunity provided by Government Code section 831.4 “for an injury caused by a condition of . . . [a]ny unpaved road which provides access to . . . water sports [or] recreational or scenic areas and which is not a . . . street or highway . . .” (Gov’t C. § 831.4.) While Crane was not a party to the federal court proceeding, the County claims the Federal Order is collateral estoppel as to its liability to either Mangiaracina or Crane.
PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court for leave to file an amended answer to assert an affirmative defense of “trail immunity” under Government Code section 831.4.
NOREEN LIM ET AL VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
“Since the Great Meadow Bikeway has mixed uses that undisputedly include recreation, the Regents have trail immunity under section 831.4, subdivision (b) from claims, such as plaintiffs' claims, that arise from the condition of the Great Meadow Bikeway.” Burgueno v. Regents of University of California (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1061. The First Amended complaint does not allege that Plaintiffs’ decedent was on a roadway providing access to recreational activities. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Code § 831.4. Moving party is ordered to give notice.
The trail immunity operates without reference to the design immunity.
ANAYA VS CITY OF FULLERTON
Defendant asserts that the subject incident is covered by “Trail Immunity” under Govt. Code § 831.4.
LAURIZA TABITA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL
Further, City contends that requiring it to install guardrails everywhere it might be reasonable prudent would greatly undermine the objective of trail immunity, which is to encourage access to recreational areas. (Arvizu v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 760, 767; Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1084.) In Opposition, Plaintiff argues trail immunity does not apply because the gymnasium is not merely used for recreation.
HENGST V. CITY OF VALLEJO
It is well established that a paved bike trail qualifies for the unconditional immunity of Government Code §831.4(b). Several decisions have considered the application of section 831.4 trail immunity in the context of a bicycle accident on a public trail or path. In Armenio, the plaintiff was injured while riding his bicycle in a county park on a paved trail used for hiking and riding. (Armenio, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 415.)
GLEASON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE
Defendant contends that Government Code section 831.4, immunizes Defendant from liability because the “bike lane” qualifies as a trail within the meaning of Government Code section 831.4. (Defendant The County of Orange’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion), filed on 11-7-18; 4:20-23.) Plaintiff’s Opposition asserts that Government Code section 831.4 does not apply because the “bike lane” is a Class III Bikeway.
ADAM STOWERS VS THE PASEO CLUB INC ET AL
City argues it is entitled to trail immunity.
CHEN VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE
Code, § 831.4: “A public entity ‘is absolutely immune from liability for injuries caused by a physical defect of a [recreational] trail.’. . . Immunity under section 831.4 is sometimes referred to as ‘trail immunity’.” Burgueno v. Regents of University of California (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1059. Gov.
Further, cases that apply trail immunity typically involve paths or trails that are primarily designed and used for the recreational activities enumerated in section 831.4(a) and for gaining access to those activities. In any event, plaintiff has met her burden of showing triable issues of material fact.
MENDEZ VS CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
Thus, Defendant's own evidence suggests that the location where the incident occurred was on a city street, which is expressly excluded from trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4, subd. (a). Defendant cites no legal authority to support is contention that a bike lane on a city street may satisfy the recreational use requirement of Government Code section 831.4, subd. (a), which is incorporated into Government Code section 831.4, subd. (b).
LACEY VS. GALINDO
Even where a trail itself has a mixed use, and is sometimes used by vehicles, this does not constitute an exception to trail immunity because the statute contains no such exception. See Hartt v. County of Los Angeles, 197 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1400 (2011). Even after plaintiff’s counsel was advised multiple times of this fact, plaintiffs continued to pursue the claims.
SHEILA PARKER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Code §§831.4(a) and (b) (trail immunity). Gov.
DEANNA HUNT VS CITY OF STOCKTON
Accordingly, where plaintiff fell is a “trail” for purposes of the “trail immunity” provided by Government Code section 831.4(b) and plaintiff’s action is therefore barred. “The “trial immunity” provided by section 831.4 “applies to any trail or path specifically put aside and developed for recreational uses, without regard to its unnatural condition or urban location, . . . [including] paved, multi-purpose paths located in metropolitan areas . . ..” Montenegro v.
ESCAMILLA VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE PUBLIC WORKS
…We also held that the trail immunity statute applied to any such recreational trail, paved or unpaved. (Armenio, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 418.)” (Id.) n “The state cannot be liable for a dangerous condition of public property when it enjoys absolute immunity for one necessary component of the liability equation. Liability may only result from the combination of third party activity plus a physical trail defect.