What is trail immunity?

Useful Rulings on Trail Immunity

Recent Rulings on Trail Immunity

GLEASON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

Here, Defendant has asserted an affirmative defense of trail immunity as provided by Government Code section 831.4. Defendant appears to contend that a finding that the Defendant is immune from liability under section 831.4 would also require summary adjudication as to Issue No. 1. Since the court has found that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that Government Code section 831.4 applies as described above as to Issue No. 2, the court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Issue No. 1.

  • Hearing

DVORAK VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

City asserts it is immune from Plaintiff's claims on the basis of trail immunity. (Govt. Code § 831.4(b).) At issue in this motion is whether the location where the incident occurred is a "trail" within the meaning of the statute.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EVAN BRAFF VS EL SEGUNDO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Motion for Summary Judgment Parties’ Positions At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that the premises liability claim fails because the tricycle path, which did not violate any safety standards was not a dangerous condition, and Defendant is also immune from liability under Government Code §§ 831.4 and 830.6.

  • Hearing

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

State of California (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 472, 476 [“[N]othing in section 831.4 makes immunity contingent on giving proper warnings”].) Further, trail immunity extends to claims for injuries sustained during “recreational driving of [a motor] vehicle” on an unpaved road of trial. (Giannuzzi v. State of California (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 462, 467.) County’s demurrer is sustained for the foregoing reasons. 2.

  • Hearing

GLEASON V. COUNTY OF ORANGE

(Government Code section 831.4.) Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that facts essential to the opposition may exist, and that there is reason to believe such facts may exist. Plaintiff has also shown that additional time is necessary because Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel further testimony of Zhu scheduled for hearing on 9-9-20. Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a continuance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h).

  • Hearing

TRUJILLO VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

C. §831.4(a)). Immunity extends to any “trail used for the above purposes.” (Govt. C. §831.4(b)). “ ‘The trail immunity provided in subdivision (b) of the statute extends to …trails that are used solely for access to such activities. [Citation] The immunity applies whether or not the trail is paved.’ ” (Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 979, 982, citing Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1078 (“Amberger-Warren”).)

  • Hearing

LAJUNE SHANNEL NEWBORN VS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA , ET AL.

Defendant also demurs to the third cause of action for premises liability because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Torts Claim Act and her action is barred by the trail immunity doctrine. Defendant further demurs to the fourth cause of action for general negligence because Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy for dangerous condition allegations is Government Code section 835.

  • Hearing

EVAN BRAFF VS EL SEGUNDO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Motion for Summary Judgment Parties’ Positions At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that the premises liability claim fails because the tricycle path, which did not violate any safety standards was not a dangerous condition, and Defendant is also immune from liability under Government Code §§ 831.4 and 830.6.

  • Hearing

HANLEY V. LOYD

The Court in Amberger found trail immunity applies to the location of a trail. (Id.). As Defendants have not identified authority which applies immunity where an injury occurs near to a trail, this portion of the Demurrer fails.

  • Hearing

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

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

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

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

OZEROFF VS BIRD RIDES INC

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

OZEROFF VS BIRD RIDES INC

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

  • Hearing

  • 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

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

  • 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

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

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

  • 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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NEALY VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

The trail immunity operates without reference to the design immunity.

  • Hearing

ANAYA VS CITY OF FULLERTON

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

  • Hearing

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

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

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.