Recreational Use Immunity in California

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.

Monroe's Motion for Summary Judgment Monroe argues he is immune from liability pursuant to the recreational immunity statute, Civil Code, section 846. In general, a property owner owes no duty of care to keep premises safe for entry or use for any recreational purpose or to give warning of hazardous conditions to persons entering those premises "for a recreational purpose." Civil Code, § 846.

Civil Code § 846 states: (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.

Defendant contends that the Store is a grocery store, not a property being used for a recreational purpose, and that therefore the provisions of Civil Code § 846 are inapplicable. However, the nature of the property upon which the injury occurred is not dispositive as to the applicability of Civil Code § 846; the statutes application is not restricted to land suitable for recreational use. ( Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1108.)

Considering each of these grounds in turn: The Recreational Use Immunity The Court denies Defendant Edison's request for summary judgment based on the recreational use immunity set forth in Civil Code §846, on the ground that Edison fails to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact as to either of the two requirements for establishing this immunity.

First, this Court finds that Recreational Immunity pursuant to Civil Code § 846 applies and that the exception provided in Civil Code § 846(c)(3) does not apply.

CVIN contends that it owed no duty to Decedents based on the immunity provided by Civil Code 846. On the other hand, Plaintiffs argue that their claims against CVIN fall under the exceptions to the recreational immunity set forth in Civil Code 846(d). See also CACI 1010.

[CCP § 437c(p)(2)] Recreational Use Immunity Civil Code §846 immunizes private landowners from liability for injuries sustained by recreational users of their property. (Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1098) “The statute provides an exception from the general rule that a private landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to any person coming upon the land.”

Plaintiff appaers to be contending that the Defendant HOA can be held liable under Civil Code §846 because it maliciously failed to guard or warn her about a crack in the pavement in the common area that had been brought to its attention. That is not a correct statement of law. Civil Code §846 has no application to this case, as that statute concerns issues of liability with respect to the recreational use of property. Here, Plaintiff Ms.

It contends that it cannot be liable because it owes Plaintiff no duty under Civil Code § 846. It argues that no exception under Civil Code § 846 applies. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not meet its initial burden because Civil Code § 846 is not applicable. She argues that even if it is applicable, an exception under Civil Code § 846 applies.

Further, Defendants contend that the second element of Civil Code § 846 is met because Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from his use of the bicycle path for a recreational purpose.

Civil Code 846 applies to “[a]n 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.” (emphasis added).

Recreational Use Immunity (Civ.

Plaintiff’s Opposition contends that Delta Farms precluded “public utilities” from recreational immunity. By contrast, however, Delta Farms states that “public entities” (not “public utilities”) are not protected under Civil Code section 846. Nowhere in the Delta Farms opinion does the term “public utility” appear.

(See Ektelon v City of San Diego (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 804, 810) Additionally, Count Two is not properly pled against the City of Oceanside in light of the fact Civil Code § 846 applies only to private landowners. (See Collins v Tippett (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1017, 1020) Moreover, it is clear from the express language of the statute that it applies only to recreational use of private property. Here, Plaintiff does not allege a recreational use.

Civil Code § 846(a) Alternatively, Defendant argues that it is not liable under Civil Code section 846(a).

Analysis Here, KKOL seeks to add an affirmative defense based upon recreational immunity ( see KKOLs Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer, pg. 2 and 6): Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 846 et seq., KKOL alleges that Plaintiff s only claim against it is barred by recreational immunity pursuant to California Civil Code Section 846 and Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1099- 1100.

Defendant argues the recreational use immunity under Civil Code section 846 serves as a complete defense to this action because a “recreational purpose” includes “picnicking” and “viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, natural, or scientific sites.” However, there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Idaly Rodriguez’s injury resulted from the “entry or use” of defendant’s property for a recreational purpose.

Believing that the current allegations place the action within the recreational use immunity of Civil Code section 846, especially when considered in light of the now-deleted allegations that plaintiffs were utilizing the trestle for “sightseeing purposes” at the time of the incident, these defendants have demurred based upon the recreational use immunity.

Civil Code § 846 provides: 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. . .

to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.”

Civil Code § 846 provides immunity for real property used for recreational purposes in certain situations: (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.

Defendants seek leave to file a first amended answer, whereby they would add an affirmative defense under Civil Code section 846 (the “recreational immunity statute”).

They contend the FAC, on its face, is barred by Civil Code §846, the so-called “recreational immunity” statute. Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, concedes the face of the FAC shows it is barred. Plaintiff seeks leave, however, to file a Second Amended Complaint wherein he proposes to set forth certain facts that will take the complaint outside of the scope of recreational immunity. Defendants, in reply, do not argue leave to amend would be futile.

Explanation: Defendants failed to establish that the recreational use immunity statute, Civil Code section 846, applies in this case. The fact that plaintiff checked a box on the Judicial Council form implicating the statute is not dispositive. Civil Code section 846 “provides an exception from the general rule that a private landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to any person coming upon the land.” (Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1099.)

Second, with regard to Count Two-Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code 846], Metro contends that Civil Code section 846, which creates an exception to the general rule of nonliability for recreational use where the property owner deliberately concealed a known danger, is inapplicable to the current matter. Metro is a public entity.

Plaintiff’s form complaint includes a second count for failure to warn under Civil Code §846, which Defendant, Alliance Communities, Inc. moves to strike. Defendants correctly note that §846, on its face, applies only to incidents that occur while the plaintiff is using the property for a recreational purpose. Plaintiff alleges she slipped and fell on the stairs of her apartment building, and therefore §846 is not applicable. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 1/05/17.

Count Two – Willful Failure to Warn under Civil Code § 846 A number of California decisions have held Civil Code § 846 does not apply to public entities in light of the comprehensive scheme of the Government Claims Act. (Nelsen v.

The Second Count is “willful failure to warn” pursuant to Civil Code section 846, and the Third Count is “dangerous condition of public property”. BLM argues that the Second and Third Counts are irrelevant, improper, and not conforming to the law. The Second Count relies on Civ. Code section 846, which creates a qualified immunity for property owners who provide their premises for recreational use.

Civil Code 846 is inapposite because there are no allegations indicating that Ms. Cevarich was using the property for a "recreational purpose" within the meaning of the statute. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. Counsel for Mr.

Civil Code § 846(a) Alternatively, Defendant argues that it is not liable under Civil Code section 846(a).

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.”

Civil Code § 846 states: (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.

Civil Code section 846 provides: 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. (Civ. Code, § 846, subd. (a); see Klein v.

Motion to Strike Moving Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s second count of premises liability for a failure to warn pursuant to Civil Code section 846 should be stricken because Plaintiff has not alleged involvement in a recreational purpose. (Motion to Strike, p. 4:2-4:20.) The Court agrees. A recreational purpose is expressly defined in Civil Code section 846. Plaintiff has alleged that she was injured while engaging in a non-recreational purpose – exiting class.

Furthermore, Plaintiff contends there are triable issues as to whether Plaintiff accessed the rooftop for a recreational purpose within the meaning of Civil Code § 846, and whether recreational immunity applies in the landlord-tenant context absent an express recreational activity release and waiver.

(Civil Code § 846; Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Sup. Ct. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 704-707, superseded by statute on other grounds; Nelsen v. City of Gridley (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 87, 95.) In the Complaint, there is no allegation that Plaintiff was engaged in any designated recreational use when she fell off the curb. Thus, the demurrer should be sustained.

P Mabees contend that an issue of fact exists as to whether Mabee and Hernandez were trespassing for "recreational use" under Civil Code § 846; or whether they were simply trying to get from "Point 'A' to 'Point 'B'". P Mabees are correct that Ds arguments in this regard are laid to rest by the appellate opinion in Domingue v. Presley of S. Cal. (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1060, 1065.

Recreational Use Immunity Defendant argues the action against him is barred per Civ Code §846, which provides: 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.

Civil Code § 846 Alternatively, Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted under Civil Code section 846.

Willful failure to warn 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.

Count two for willful failure to warn under premises liability is subject to Civil Code section 846. Civil Code section 846 in relevant part states that an owner real property 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. (Civ. Code, § 846.)

Plaintiff seeks leave to allege facts to rebut the recreational immunity raised in summary judgments filed by defendants by American Heritage Protection Services Inc., 100 Halcyon Owner, LLC, and Parkway Properties, Inc., dba KG Investment Properties. Plaintiff argues that amendment is necessary because none of these defendants asserted recreational use immunity under Civil Code section 846 as an affirmative defense in an answer. Defendant American Heritage Protection Services Inc.

There is also good cause to grant this motion, as Civil Code section 846 is directed to recreational use, and Plaintiff does not allege recreational use as the cause of her injuries. Court to prepare formal order.

There is also good cause to grant this motion, as Civil Code section 846 is directed to recreational use, and Plaintiff does not allege recreational use as the cause of her injuries. Court to prepare formal order.

There is also good cause to grant this motion, as Civil Code section 846 is directed to recreational use, and Plaintiff does not allege recreational use as the cause of her injuries. Court to prepare formal order.

There is also good cause to grant this motion, as Civil Code section 846 is directed to recreational use, and Plaintiff does not allege recreational use as the cause of her injuries. Court to prepare formal order.

There is also good cause to grant this motion, as Civil Code section 846 is directed to recreational use, and Plaintiff does not allege recreational use as the cause of her injuries. Court to prepare formal order.

There is also good cause to grant this motion, as Civil Code section 846 is directed to recreational use, and Plaintiff does not allege recreational use as the cause of her injuries. Court to prepare formal order.

There is also good cause to grant this motion, as Civil Code section 846 is directed to recreational use, and Plaintiff does not allege recreational use as the cause of her injuries. Court to prepare formal order.

Analysis California Civil Code section 846 states, in pertinent part: 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 for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses or, structures, or activities on those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section. (Cal. Civ.

Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment because, pursuant to Civil Code § 846, it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care. The Court agrees.

Civil Code §846 states a landowner 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 person entering for a recreational purpose. (Civ. Code, §846.) “Recreational purpose” means activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, etc. (Id.)

Count Two of Premises Liability Claim Civil Code section 846 states that a land owner 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 except: (a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any

Civil Code section 846 provides in pertinent part: (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. (Civ. Code, § 846(a).)

Summary Moving Arguments Defendants seek leave to file their First Amended Answer to include an affirmative defense of recreational immunity pursuant to Civil Code section 846, CACI No. 1010, Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1099-1100, and Hubbard v. Brown (1990) 50 Cal.3d 189, 196.

Civil Code § 846 immunizes landowners from liability to nonpaying recreational users (old-fashioned "trespassers"), except as to wilful misconduct. It was never intended to apply to dues-paying gym members in the commercial setting. Nor do P's claims rise to the level of "wilfulness" necessary to sustain such a claim. (Cf., facts in New.) Call it "JOP" or "motion to strike", if you prefer. Either way, MP is correct that P has not stated and cannot state a Civil Code § 846 claim in this context.

Failure to Warn The second count in the premises liability cause of action is for willful failure to warn pursuant to Civil Code §846. §846 provides: 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

“Water sports” are specifically included in the definition of “recreational purpose.”

Second Cause of Action: Premises Liability – Willful Failure to Warn (Civil Code section 846) Civil Code section 846, often called the “recreational use immunity statute,” creates an exception to the general rule that private landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to persons coming upon land. Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 927, 937-38.

P Mabees contend that an issue of fact exists as to whether Mabee and Hernandez were trespassing for "recreational use" under Civil Code § 846; or whether they were simply trying to get from "Point 'A' to 'Point 'B'". Even if the Railroad Ds' deposition evidence had been admissible, P Mabees are correct that Ds arguments in this regard are laid to rest by the appellate opinion in Domingue v. Presley of S. Cal. (1988) 197 Cal.

Government Code § 811.2 broadly defines the term “public entity” to include “the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State.” 3.First Cause of Action for Premises Liability, Count 2: Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code § 846] Civil Code § 846 affords private landowners a recreational use

Government Code § 811.2 broadly defines the term “public entity” to include “the state, the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University and the California State University, a county, city, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State.” 3.First Cause of Action for Premises Liability, Count 2: Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code § 846] Civil Code § 846 affords private landowners a recreational use

Based on the above, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff entered the subject premises for a "recreational purpose" within the meaning of section 846, and no triable issue of fact as to whether any of the exceptions to the recreational use immunity apply. Accordingly, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff's premises liability claim against Harbor is barred by the recreational use immunity, and Harbor's request for summary judgment is granted.

Civil Code section 846. Defendant argues that it is immune from Plaintiff’s claims under Civil Code section 8461. Section 846 is California’s recreational use immunity statute, conferring property owners with immunity from liability arising from the recreational use of their property. (Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 563, 565.)

Based on the above, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff entered the Leased Premises for a "recreational purpose" within the meaning of §846, and no triable issue of fact as to whether any of the exceptions to the recreational use immunity apply. Accordingly, there is no triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff's premises liability claim against Harbor is barred by the recreational use immunity, and Harbor's request for summary judgment must be granted.

Specifically, Norms argues that since Plaintiff fails to allege that Plaintiff was on Norms’ premises for a recreational purpose, the allegations do not conform with the requirements of Civil Code section 846 which is the basis of count two.

Defendant Rouhani first contends that no duty exists to protect a person who enters a premises for recreational activity under Civil Code section 846, which states: 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

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 ...

L.3: Willful failure to warn under Civil Code section 846. Civil Code section 846 states that the owner of real property owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for any recreational purpose except for, among others, a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity. (Civil Code § 846 (a), (d)(1).)

It does so with this caveat: Civil Code § 846 has no bearing unless it is established that plaintiff was a recreational user of the property. A general demurrer may be upheld "only if the complaint fails to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory." (Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 992, 998.) Here, the facts alleged in the second count are sufficient to state a cause of action for a negligent failure to warn.

Willful failure to warn 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.

She sued the Gesinee Defendants (and the City of Concord) for premises liability based upon negligence (count one), willful failure to warn, Civil Code §846 (count two) and dangerous condition of public property (count three). The Gesinee Defendants have brought a motion to strike arguing that counts two and three do not apply to them because there are no factual allegations to support those counts against the Gesinee Defendants. Count two is based on the failure to warn under Civil Code §846.

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.

Under Count Two of her premises liability cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity pursuant to Civil Code section 846. Section 846 provides that a property owner 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.

Civil Code Section 846 Provides a Defense to the First Cause of Action and Count One ___of the Second Cause of Action__________________________________________________ Civil Code section 846 limits the duty of landowners, and other persons with an interest in land, to persons entering the land for recreational purpose: "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

The complaint is a judicial council form complaint for premises liability, and includes counts for negligence and willful failure to warn under Civil Code §846. 2. Motion to Strike Defendant moves to strike the second count for willful failure to warn, contending §846 is not applicable to this case. Civil Code §846 is entitled Duty of care or warning to persons entering property for recreation; Effect of permission to enter.

Count two of plaintiff�s second cause of action for premises liability is predicated upon an alleged breach of Civil Code Section 846, which concerns the liability of owners of real property to persons who enter the owner�s property for recreational purposes.

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.

The statute is designed to encourage landowners to make their property available for recreational use by eliminating the risk of liability for injuries resulting from such use. To invoke Section 846, two conditions must be met: (1) the defendant must have an interest in the property, and (2) the plaintiff's injury must arise from a "recreational purpose" use of the property. ( Klein v. United States of America (2010) 50 Cal.4th 68, 78-79.)

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

Section 846 confers immunity recreational use immunity except where there is a willful or malicious failure to warn. Cal. Gov. Code § 846. Plaintiff does not allege she used Defendant’s property for a recreational purpose. Rather, Plaintiff alleges she was an invitee in Defendant’s hotel, when a guest room mirror fell on her foot. Complaint page 5. Plaintiff proposes to file a First Amended Complaint that deletes Count 2 of the second cause of action for premises liability.

recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.”

Although "sightseeing" is listed as a "recreational purpose" under Civil Code § 846, it is not listed as a "hazardous recreational activity" under section 831.7. "Where a statute referring to one subject contains a critical word or phrase, omission of that word or phrase from a similar statute on the same subject generally shows a different legislative intent." Craven v. Crout (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 779, 783. The motions for summary adjudication are denied.

In addition, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that Defendants willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity for purposes of Civil Code § 846. Civil Code § 846 generally provides that land owners do not owe a 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.” (Civ. Code § 846(a).)

The Plaintiff Cannot Prove She was a Recreational User of the Land (Count 2) Civil Code § 846 provides, “An owner of any estate… 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.” (Emphasis added.)

Granted without leave to amend as to the willful failure to warn allegations per Civil Code 846 and denied as to the punitive damages allegations. Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that defendant acted with a conscious disregard for the safety of others. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1099–1100, where the Court addressed Civil Code § 846. Civil Code § 846 establishes limited liability on the part of a private landowner for injuries sustained by another from recreational use of the land. The statute provides an exception from the general rule that a private landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to any person coming upon the land.

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.

Premises Liability and Recreational Immunity Cuevas' only argument relating to Plaintiff's cause of action for premises liability is that he is immune from liability pursuant to the Recreational Immunity provisions of section 846 of the Civil Code.2 "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

First, Defendants move to strike Count Two of Plaintiff’s premises liability cause of action, which asserts a theory of willful failure to warn pursuant to Civil Code section 846. Section 846 provides that a property owner 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.

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.

Defendant contends that willful failure to warn, pursuant to Civil Code § 846, concerns failure to warn of a dangerous condition of recreational property, and that the Property was not a recreational property and was not held or operated for recreational purposes. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. ( Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 ( Hahn ).)

The Court finds that Pumpkin Patch has failed to meet its burden of proof because the consideration exception to the recreational use immunity statue applies. (Civ. Code, § 846, subd. (d)(2); Gordon v. Havasu Palms, Inc. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 244, 255; citing Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1100; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v.

Civil Code Section 846 Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of recreational immunity under Civil Code section 846.

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.

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 by section 846. (Civ. Code § 846(a).)

However, the 2 nd cause of action is already alleged to be for premises liability based on negligence, willful failure to warn (Civil Code § 846), and dangerous condition of public property. (Compl. p. 5, Prem.L-2 – Prem.L-4.) The City did not challenge the premises liability cause of action and asserted that it is alleged properly. Plaintiff argues that the 2nd cause of action “mirrors and supports” the 1st cause of action. But, if the 2nd cause of action is based on Govt.