Opinion ID: 2614919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Property Subject to the Statute

Text: As noted earlier, section 846 sets forth two elements as a precondition to immunity: the injury must result from the use of the property for a recreational purpose, as discussed above, and must occur on land in which the defendant owns an estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory. On its face, therefore, the ownership requirement appears to be both exceptionally broad and singularly unambiguous. The language was not always so comprehensive. As originally enacted the statute immunized only the owner of any estate in real property. (Stats. 1963, ch. 1759, § 1, p. 3511.) It was subsequently amended, however, following a pair of appellate decisions holding that section 846 applied exclusively to holders of possessory interests in real property. (Stats. 1980, ch. 408, § 1, p. 797; Hubbard v. Brown (1990) 50 Cal.3d 189 [266 Cal. Rptr. 491, 785 P.2d 1183]; Darr v. Lone Star Industries, Inc. (1979) 94 Cal. App.3d 895 [157 Cal. Rptr. 90]; O'Shea v. Claude C. Wood Co. (1979) 97 Cal. App.3d 903 [159 Cal. Rptr. 125].) Thus, as we have observed, the current statute articulates an exceptionally broad definition of the types of `interest' in property which will trigger immunity. ( Hubbard v. Brown, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 192 [holding that the holder of a permit to graze livestock on federal lands is an owner of an interest in real property under § 846; see also Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.3d 699 [§ 846 applies only to private landowners, not public entities].)