What is Recreational Use Immunity?

Useful Rulings on Recreational Use Immunity

Recent Rulings on Recreational Use Immunity

NANCY RAUEN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS K&K FOODS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 19, 2020, alleging three causes of action sounding in: (1) Negligence; (2) Willful Failure to Warn (Civil Code § 846); and (3) Dangerous Condition of Public Property. 5541 Rosemead Boulevard, LLC ("Rosemead") filed a Cross-Complaint on August 21, 2020 and a First Amended Cross-Complaint ("FXC") on September 30, 2020 against Aria Burger King, Inc. and Kaiser Sphere, alleging nine (9) causes of action sounding in (1) Express Indemnity; (2) Equitable Indemnity; (3) Comparative

  • Hearing

DVORAK VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Secondly, the court concludes the incident location "qualifies as a trail because it is designed and used for a recreational purpose." (Amberger-Warren at p. 1079.) The location is designated as trail on the park's trail maps; it is used by walkers, joggers, and bicyclists; and it provides access to various recreational activities at Balboa Park. (Pltf. Resp. Sep. Stmt. at ¶¶ 10-12.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MAYES VS LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY

For Recreational Use Immunity, CCP § 846, a property owner is immune from liability for injuries incurred on his property where the injuries were sustained while the plaintiff was engaged in a “recreational purpose.” Defendant does not provide any authority for the proposition that a “recreational purpose” includes watching a baseball game at the university campus. Defendant has not met its initial burden of showing that the undisputed facts support each element of this affirmative defense.

  • Hearing

CHRISTENSEN VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Regarding the general Demurrer to cause of action 3, Civil Code section 846 does not apply to public entities. See Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 699. This cause of action nonetheless survives a Demurrer because it alleges a claim for a dangerous condition of public property. See Sheehan v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTENSEN VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Regarding the general Demurrer to cause of action 3, Civil Code section 846 does not apply to public entities. See Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 699. This cause of action nonetheless survives a Demurrer because it alleges a claim for a dangerous condition of public property. See Sheehan v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTENSEN VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Regarding the general Demurrer to cause of action 3, Civil Code section 846 does not apply to public entities. See Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 699. This cause of action nonetheless survives a Demurrer because it alleges a claim for a dangerous condition of public property. See Sheehan v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Therefore, the altematives to the proposed project considered developing the planning area to provide recreational use of Camegie SVRA while staying consistent with the OHMVR Act and the OHMVR Division's mission statement. (AR 88.) The Court recognizes the general directive and intent for SVRAs to provide OHV recreation opportunities.

  • Hearing

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Therefore, the alternatives to the proposed project considered developing the planning area to provide recreational use of Carnegie SVRA while staying consistent with the OHMVR Act and the OHMVR Division’s mission statement. (AR 88.) The Court recognizes the general directive and intent for SVRAs to provide OHV recreation opportunities.

  • Hearing

QUINONES VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED

Willful Failure to Warn – Civil Code § 846 Plaintiff concedes the City's demurrer as to this cause of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RONALD FECIK VS LRS REALTY & MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff checked the box concerning “Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846].” In so doing, Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants “willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.” This count allows litigant to allege facts that would overcome recreational use immunity under Civil Code section 846.

  • Hearing

JOHNC C. BRENNAN, JR. VS CITY OF CERRITOS

Plaintiff’s count for willful failure to warn based on a violation of Civil Code section 846 is also stricken because Civil Code section 846 is inapplicable to public entities. (Nelsen v. City of Gridley (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 87.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ISBELLA MCMILLER ET AL. VS CITY OF STOCKTON

Second, Plaintiff did not address Count Two for willful failure to warn under Civil Code section 846 in her opposition. Nevertheless, City’s demurrer to this count is sustained without leave to amend. (See, e.g., Klein v. United States of America (2010) 50 Cal.4th 68, 74 [holding willful failure to warn claim under Civil Code section 846(d)(1) does not apply to California public entities].)

  • Hearing

TIERNAN VS. KALIN

Civil Code § 846, discussed further below, evidences the goal of the California Legislature to incentivize private landowners to allow public recreational use of privately owned open space. (See Hubbard v. Brown (1990) 50 Cal.3d 189, 192-195; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 563, 576.)

  • Hearing

GRACIELA BOLTIANSKY VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

Based upon these facts, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) A common law negligence claim, (2) A claim for “Willful Failure to Warn,” per Civil Code section 846, and (3) A claim for Dangerous Condition of Public Property. Among other issues, Defendant moves for summary judgment by arguing that any dangerous condition was a trivial defect.

  • Hearing

OSCAR ROBERTS VS ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.

Superior Court (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 563, 567-68.) “ ‘In sum, …, the effect of section 846 is that 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.’ ... [¶] Except as provided in [Civil Code section] 846,…’ [Citation.]” (Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electric (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 927, 938.)

  • Hearing

DEBORAH HAAS VS 1601 PCH, LP, ET AL.

Demurrer California Civil Code section 846 provides that landowners have no duty to keep property safe or warn of hazardous conditions when entered for a recreational purpose unless certain exceptions apply. Here, Plaintiff has alleged in paragraph Prem.L-3 of the complaint that Demurring Party failed to warn of a dangerous condition pursuant to California Civil Code section 846.

  • Hearing

ROBERT JAMES ROMERO VS CITY OF MANTECA, A PUBLIC ENTITY ET AL.

However, Civil Code section 846 does not apply to California public entities. (Klein v. United States of America (2010) 50 Cal.4th 68, 77-78. See also Delta Farms Reclamation District v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 707-708 [holding Civil Code section 846 did not apply to public entities because it was irreconcilable with various provisions of the Tort Claims Act that provides immunity to public entities for recreational use of public property]; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v.

  • Hearing

TRUJILLO VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

“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.’” (Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1078 (“Amberger-Warren”.)

  • Hearing

MUKERGEE VS PARKVIEW COMMUNITY

Premises Liability (Count 1 for negligence in the ownership, maintenance, management, and operation of Parkview and Count 2 for Willful Failure to Warn under Civil Code section 846); 2. General Negligence; 3. Premises Liability (Count 1 for negligence in the ownership, maintenance, management, and operation of Parkview and Count 2 for Willful Failure to Warn under Civil Code section 846); 4. General Negligence. Defendant then filed a demurrer and motion to strike.

  • Hearing

KAREN M. FISHER VS STARBUCKS

Civil Code section 846 provides that landowners have no duty to keep property safe or warn of hazardous conditions when entered for a recreational purpose unless certain exceptions apply. Here, Plaintiff alleges she entered Defendant’s property to purchase a drink. This is not a recreational purpose. As such, the allegation in paragraph Prem.L-3 is properly stricken. Dangerous conditions of public property render public entities liable pursuant to Government Code section 835.

  • Hearing

SHANNA RUCKER VS RAUL LOPEZ ET AL

Recreational Use Immunity Pursuant to California Civil Code section 846, subdivision (a), “[a]n owner of any estate or any other interest in real property . . . owes no duty to 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

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

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

  • 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

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.