What is trail immunity?

Useful Rulings on Trail Immunity

Recent Rulings on Trail Immunity

MCKENZIE, WENDY ET AL VS. CITY OF CHICO

Finally, the Court finds that immunity under Government Code 831.4 is inapplicable here as the alleged dangerous condition is unrelated to the trail itself. The Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2020

BARCLAY, JUDITH VS. CITY OF CHICO

However, the Court finds that Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code Section 831.4. Plaintiff's argument that subsection (c) limits the immunity where Defendant failed to provide adequate warnings is without merit as that subsection applies only to easements granted to a public entity, which is not the case here; the alleged accident occurring on property owned by the Defendant. The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted on this basis.

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2020

DAVID MARQUEZ VS COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

Section 831.4. Government Code section 831.4, referred to the “trail immunity” statute, provides immunity to public entities for injuries occurring on recreational trails. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) “Whether a property is considered a “trail” under section 831.4 turns on “a number of considerations,” including (1) the accepted definitions of the property, (2) the purpose for which the property is designed and used, and (3) the purpose of the immunity statute.” (Lee v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2020

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

Defendant demurs to the First Amended Complaint on trail immunity grounds and for failing to state a cause of action against Defendant. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

OZEROFF VS BIRD RIDES INC

The City is immune from liability under trail immunity. Govt.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

OZEROFF VS BIRD RIDES INC

The City is immune from liability under trail immunity. Govt.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

COLLINS VS. CITY OF PITTSBURG

Code §831.4(b)); Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097 (finding Gov. Code §831.4(b) provides total immunity for any paved or unpaved trail for recreational access or use); Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074 (finding that “path” and “trail” are synonymous for purposes of Gov. Code §831.4(b) and finding that a paved pathway through a dog park qualifies as a recreational purpose under the statute); Lee v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

ROBERT PARCO VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL

DISCUSSION Pursuant to Government Code section 831.4, a public entity is not liable for any injury caused by a condition of trails. The District Court of Appeal has held that the Sepulveda Basin Bikeway is a trail for purposes of trail immunity. (Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1098-1103.) Therefore, Defendant is entitled to immunity. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, waiving any arguments in opposition to the motion. (Sexton v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CRANE VS. MANGIARACINA

The judge in the federal case reached this conclusion based on the immunity provided by Government Code section 831.4 “for an injury caused by a condition of . . . [a]ny unpaved road which provides access to . . . water sports [or] recreational or scenic areas and which is not a . . . street or highway . . .” (Gov’t C. § 831.4.) While Crane was not a party to the federal court proceeding, the County claims the Federal Order is collateral estoppel as to its liability to either Mangiaracina or Crane.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

RONEE BERNS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court for leave to file an amended answer to assert an affirmative defense of “trail immunity” under Government Code section 831.4.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

NOREEN LIM ET AL VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

“Since the Great Meadow Bikeway has mixed uses that undisputedly include recreation, the Regents have trail immunity under section 831.4, subdivision (b) from claims, such as plaintiffs' claims, that arise from the condition of the Great Meadow Bikeway.” Burgueno v. Regents of University of California (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1061. The First Amended complaint does not allege that Plaintiffs’ decedent was on a roadway providing access to recreational activities. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHELLE LOCKE VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, ET AL.

Code § 831.4. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NEALY VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

The trail immunity operates without reference to the design immunity.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2019

ANAYA VS CITY OF FULLERTON

Defendant asserts that the subject incident is covered by “Trail Immunity” under Govt. Code § 831.4.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

LAURIZA TABITA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Further, City contends that requiring it to install guardrails everywhere it might be reasonable prudent would greatly undermine the objective of trail immunity, which is to encourage access to recreational areas. (Arvizu v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 760, 767; Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1084.) In Opposition, Plaintiff argues trail immunity does not apply because the gymnasium is not merely used for recreation.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

HENGST V. CITY OF VALLEJO

It is well established that a paved bike trail qualifies for the unconditional immunity of Government Code §831.4(b). Several decisions have considered the application of section 831.4 trail immunity in the context of a bicycle accident on a public trail or path. In Armenio, the plaintiff was injured while riding his bicycle in a county park on a paved trail used for hiking and riding. (Armenio, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 415.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

GLEASON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Defendant contends that Government Code section 831.4, immunizes Defendant from liability because the “bike lane” qualifies as a trail within the meaning of Government Code section 831.4. (Defendant The County of Orange’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Motion), filed on 11-7-18; 4:20-23.) Plaintiff’s Opposition asserts that Government Code section 831.4 does not apply because the “bike lane” is a Class III Bikeway.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

ADAM STOWERS VS THE PASEO CLUB INC ET AL

City argues it is entitled to trail immunity.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHEN VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Code, § 831.4: “A public entity ‘is absolutely immune from liability for injuries caused by a physical defect of a [recreational] trail.’. . . Immunity under section 831.4 is sometimes referred to as ‘trail immunity’.” Burgueno v. Regents of University of California (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1059. Gov.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2018

RONEE BERNS VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Further, cases that apply trail immunity typically involve paths or trails that are primarily designed and used for the recreational activities enumerated in section 831.4(a) and for gaining access to those activities. In any event, plaintiff has met her burden of showing triable issues of material fact.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2018

MENDEZ VS CITY OF SIMI VALLEY

Thus, Defendant's own evidence suggests that the location where the incident occurred was on a city street, which is expressly excluded from trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4, subd. (a). Defendant cites no legal authority to support is contention that a bike lane on a city street may satisfy the recreational use requirement of Government Code section 831.4, subd. (a), which is incorporated into Government Code section 831.4, subd. (b).

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2018

LACEY VS. GALINDO

Even where a trail itself has a mixed use, and is sometimes used by vehicles, this does not constitute an exception to trail immunity because the statute contains no such exception. See Hartt v. County of Los Angeles, 197 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1400 (2011). Even after plaintiff’s counsel was advised multiple times of this fact, plaintiffs continued to pursue the claims.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2018

SHEILA PARKER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Code §§831.4(a) and (b) (trail immunity). Gov.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2018

DEANNA HUNT VS CITY OF STOCKTON

Accordingly, where plaintiff fell is a “trail” for purposes of the “trail immunity” provided by Government Code section 831.4(b) and plaintiff’s action is therefore barred. “The “trial immunity” provided by section 831.4 “applies to any trail or path specifically put aside and developed for recreational uses, without regard to its unnatural condition or urban location, . . . [including] paved, multi-purpose paths located in metropolitan areas . . ..” Montenegro v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2018

ESCAMILLA VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE PUBLIC WORKS

…We also held that the trail immunity statute applied to any such recreational trail, paved or unpaved. (Armenio, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 418.)” (Id.) n “The state cannot be liable for a dangerous condition of public property when it enjoys absolute immunity for one necessary component of the liability equation. Liability may only result from the combination of third party activity plus a physical trail defect.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2018

1 2 3     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.