Opinion ID: 741450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applicability of Express Invitee Exception

Text: 14 The recreational use immunity statute states that [t]his section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists ... to any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner. Cal.Civ. Code § 846. We find that the personal involvement of the gate guard in Appellant's admission to the Flight Center does not constitute an express invitation. The guard did no more than convey the couple's request to be admitted to those inside, verify that there was space available on the tour, and admit them to the base. Thus, there is no evidence that the guard made a direct, personal request that Appellant and her husband enter the base. Ravell, 22 F.3d at 963 (quoting Johnson v. Unocal Corp., 21 Cal.App. 4th 310, 317, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 148, 153 (1993)). 15 A landowner need not be ignorant of the land's use for a recreational purpose to qualify for limited liability. Rather, the statute states that [a]n owner ... who gives permission to another for entry or use for [a recreational] purpose upon the premises does not thereby ... 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. Cal.Civ. Code § 846. The gate guard did no more than give[ ] permission to another for entry or use, and the fact that access to the base was limited by the number of spaces available on the tour does not transform that permission into an invitation. Cf. Mansion v. United States, 945 F.2d 1115, 1117-18 (9th Cir.1991).