Opinion ID: 741450
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant's Purpose in Entering

Text: 8 Appellant's first argument is that she did not enter the Flight Center for a recreational purpose because her purpose in entering and using the premises [was] necessarily coordinate to NASA's statutorily prescribed purpose in allowing her to enter--i.e., the dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof, 42 U.S.C. § 2473. 1 This argument is not well-taken. First, California courts have found that the recreational purpose referred to in the statute is the purpose of the individual in entering upon the property, not the landowner's purpose in allowing public use of his or her property. See, e.g., Ornelas, 4 Cal. 4th at 1100, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d at 597, 847 P.2d at 563. 9 Second, a person who enters another's property need not enter with only one purpose (e.g., recreation) in mind. The language of the statute itself suggests that activities which may be characterized as both educational and recreational-such as viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological ... or scientific sites--fall within the ambit of Section 846. As Appellant conceded before the district court that she was visiting Dryden for recreation, Section 846 would apply even if some part of Appellant's purpose in visiting the Center was educational. 10