What is Recreational Use Immunity?

Useful Rulings on Recreational Use Immunity

Recent Rulings on Recreational Use Immunity

ARTUR MANUKYAN VS YS PROPERTIES LLC

L-3 (Count Two) alleges Willful Failure to Warn pursuant to Civil Code §846 but is not applicable and there are no facts to support it.” (Motion, p. 2:8-10.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s motion violates Code of Civil Procedure §437(c)(f)(1).” (Opp., p. 2:2.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

CHIQUITA CANYON LLC VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

“There, the owner of a private recreational facility, whose parcel was restrictively zoned for commercial recreational use, sought a zoning change to build condominiums. The city agreed to rezone the property but required an in-lieu fee of $280,000 for the development of new recreational facilities elsewhere. The court found the requisite nexus between the loss of recreational facilities and the imposition of an in-lieu mitigation fee to develop new ones.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MILLER V. EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Defendant EID moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication of the two causes of action on the following grounds: EID can not be sued for general negligence or premises liability; Civil Code, § 846 regarding a property owner not owing any 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 those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, unless there is a willful

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

SAVE THE EL DORADO CANAL V. EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

While the private owners may take action to end such recreational use, that conduct can occur with or without the project being constructed and, therefore, the project does not cause any recreational impact directly or indirectly.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

DEBORAH KERN, ET AL. VS HOTEL MAYA, ET AL.

Count Two - Willful Failure to Warn under Civil Code section 846 This count is based on Civil Code section 846, under which a landowner owes no duty 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 a recreational purpose, unless the landowner willfully or maliciously fails to guard or warn against the dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2020

STEPHANIE RILEY VS MONSEREAT LARA, ET AL.

Civil Code section 846 provides: “(a)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 those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IRENE MOYER VS EAST SHORE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK, ET AL.

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 likely cause many public entities to close such areas to public use. (Armenio v. County of San Mateo (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 413.) Trail immunity may apply to claims of negligent maintenance or negligent design of a trail. (Amberger-Warren v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

WADE LOFT V. TIMOTHY TREVITHICK, ET AL.

Vazquez argues that, in any event, the provisions of Civil Code section 846 provide him immunity against Plaintiff's premises liability claim.4 "An owner of any estate or any other 4 All subsequent statutory references herein are to the Civil Code unless otherwise noted. 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

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

FAKHOURY VS SAGUN

Second, under Civil Code section 846 an owner owes no duty to keep his or her premises safe or to warn of hazards as to persons entering with permission for "any recreational purpose." See 6 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Torts (11th Ed. 2019) at § 1245. The Complaint does not allege permission to enter onto the property for a recreational purpose. Thus, section 846 does not apply. In fact, section 846 "recognizes existing liability for ...

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FAKHOURY VS SAGUN

Second, under Civil Code section 846 an owner owes no duty to keep his or her premises safe or to warn of hazards as to persons entering with permission for "any recreational purpose." See 6 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Torts (11th Ed. 2019) at § 1245. The Complaint does not allege permission to enter onto the property for a recreational purpose. Thus, section 846 does not apply. In fact, section 846 "recognizes existing liability for ...

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PRISCILLA MARIE NIELSEN, ET AL. VS LA MIRADA THEATRE FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, ET AL.

Count 2 of Premises Liability Cause of Action – Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846] The City also moves to strike the paragraph labeled “Prem. L-3” in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff used Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001(4) in preparing the cause of action for premises liability in the first amended complaint. Plaintiff checked the box concerning “Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846].”

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

DANIEL NUSBAUM, ET AL. VS. CENTRAL VALLEY CONCRETE, INC., ET AL.

The evidence submitted by Defendant Central Valley Concrete, Inc. in Support of its Separate Statement of Undisputed Fact establishes a prima facie case that Defendant Central Valley Concrete, Inc. is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Defendant Central Valley Concrete, Inc. is entitled to immunity pursuant to Civil Code § 846. This shifts the burden of proof to Plaintiffs to provide admissible evidence that establishes a triable issue of material fact.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

  • County

    Merced County, CA

THOMAS WHITNEY V UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

Union Pacific moves here for summary judgment in its favor pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, on the grounds that Defendant is entitled to the recreational immunity defense found in Civil Code section 846.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2019

KATHLEEN MERRICK VS PRISM HOSPIALITY LP ET AL

Defendants seek to strike these portions of the first amended complaint on the ground that Civil Code section 846 does not apply to this case.

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

OZEROFF VS BIRD RIDES INC

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, (Armenio ).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

OZEROFF VS BIRD RIDES INC

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, (Armenio ).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SAVE OUR ACCESS-SANGABRIEL MOUNTAINS VS WATERSHED CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

There are many steps that will occur before elimination [of recreational use of a forest trail] unless the conflict is severe and closure is the only option to reduce the conflict.” Petitioner argues that the Project is inconsistent with this LMP policy because the EIR limits recreational use of the Project Site prior to implementing these other less severe management actions. In the FEIR, WCA disagrees with this assessment.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AGNES NABISERE MUBANDA ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

City contends that the gross negligence cause of action fails because it could only defeat the hazardous recreational immunity based on a grossly negligence act and here the plaintiff’s allegation is an omission. Plaintiff opposes the motion. 1. Summary Judgment Standards: Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CCP § 437c(c).

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

COLLINS VS. CITY OF PITTSBURG

Code §831.4(b) and finding that a paved pathway through a dog park qualifies as a recreational purpose under the statute); Lee v. Department of Parks and Recreation (“Lee”) (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 206, 213-214 (stairway within a campground found to qualify as a trail).

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

VERONICA SOLEIMANI VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 704, Civil Code §846 does not apply to public entities. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff bases her premises liability cause of action on a violation of §846, the cause of action is insufficiently pled against the City. Pursuant to Lopez v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795, any cause of action pled against a public entity must be pled with specificity.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 704, Civil Code §846 does not apply to public entities. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff bases her premises liability cause of action on a violation of §846, the cause of action is insufficiently pled against the City. Pursuant to Lopez v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795, any cause of action pled against a public entity must be pled with specificity.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

CRANE VS. MANGIARACINA

Analysis Civil Code Section 846 In pertinent part Civil Code section 846 provides as follows: (a) 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 those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

DONOHOE VS LAVENDER HILL PROPERTIES

Defendants have also failed to meet their initial burden of proof of establishing that the doctrine of assumption of the risk or recreational immunity apply. There is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendants had constructive notice of the dangerous condition and conducted a reasonable inspection of their property. Plaintiffs' additional facts 71-74, 79-80 and supporting evidence.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

DONOHOE VS LAVENDER HILL PROPERTIES

Defendants have also failed to meet their initial burden of proof of establishing that the doctrine of assumption of the risk or recreational immunity apply. There is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendants had constructive notice of the dangerous condition and conducted a reasonable inspection of their property. Plaintiffs' additional facts 71-74, 79-80 and supporting evidence.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JOSEFINA HANSING VS. RICHARD ANTHONY SEPOLIO [E-FILE]

Code § 830.8, Civil Code § 846), vicarious liability (Gov. Code §§ 815.2, 815.4, 820(a), 840.2), breach of mandatory duty (Gov. Code § 815.6), and wrongful death. See ROA 216, Caltrans UMF, nos. 1-8.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.