Purpose and Scope of the Immunity

Govt. Code section 831.4 provides as follows:

1. Any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas and which is not a
   1. city street or highway or
   2. county, state or federal highway or
   3. public street or highway of a joint highway district, boulevard district, bridge and highway district or similar district formed for the improvement or building of public streets or highways.
2. Any trail used for the above purposes.
3. Any paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk on an easement of way which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access to any unimproved property, so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of any condition of the paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk which constitutes a hazard to health or safety. Warnings required by this subdivision shall only be required where pathways are paved, and such requirement shall not be construed to be a standard of care for any unpaved pathways or roads.”

Gov. Code, § 831.4

The purpose of trail immunity is discussed in Amberger-Warren v. 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.)

“The trail immunity provided in subdivision (b) of the statute extends to trails that are used for the activities listed in subdivision (a), and to trails that are used solely for access to such activities.” (Treweek v. City of Napa (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 221, 224–229.) “The immunity applies whether or not the trail is paved.” (Armenio, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at 418.)

Immunity under Cal. Gov. Code § 831.4 applies to preclude liability for injury occurring on any unpaved road or trail that is not a street or highway that provides access to recreational or scenic areas.Cal. Gov. Code § 831.4

It precludes liability for injury occurring on any “paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk on an easement of way which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access to any unimproved property, so long as such public entity shall reasonably attempt to provide adequate warnings of the existence of any condition of the paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk . . .”

However, warnings “shall only be required where pathways are paved, and such requirement shall not be construed to be a standard of care for any unpaved pathways or roads.” Cal. Gov. Code § 831.4

Boardwalks

Whether the Boardwalk is a recreational trail depends on analysis of three factors:

1. accepted definitions of the property;
2. the purpose for which the property is designed and used; and
3. the purpose of the immunity statute.

(Amberger-Warren at 1078-1079.)

Other cases have held that Govt. Code § 831.4 applies to bicycle paths similar to the Boardwalk. (See, e.g. Carroll v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 606, 609; Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1099-1100; Armenio v. County of San Mateo (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 413, 418.) Thus, under accepted definitions, the Boardwalk is a trail. Further, it is undisputed that the Boardwalk is used for recreational purposes and to access recreational areas. Trail immunity is promoted by deeming the Boardwalk a trail and promotes important legislative policy of permitting public use of governmental property. (See, e.g. Amberger-Warren at 1085.)

Bikeways

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.)

In Prokop v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1335, the appellate court held that the City had “absolute immunity under Government Code section 831.4 from liability for injuries suffered by a bicyclist who collided with a chain link fence immediately after exiting a class I bikeway located along the Los Angeles River.”

In Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1085, the immunity was applied in the absence of handrail on a trail. The location of the trail was “an integral feature of a trail.”

The lack of warnings or guardrails constitutes a condition of the trail, which does not avoid the trail immunity. Arvizu v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 760, 767.

The installation of guardrails that may be dangerous to bicyclist on the public trail is a condition that triggers the application of Gov. Code, § 831.4.