Trail Immunity in California

Plaintiffs have met their burden, showing that the trail immunity (Gov.C. §831.4) is without merit. The City has not opposed the motion, and concedes that the trail immunity is without merit by asserting it withdraws the defense. THEREFORE, the motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the trail immunity (Gov.C. §831.4) defense and final judgment in this action shall, in addition to any other matters determined at trial, award judgment in accord with the matters so adjudicated.

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).

On the other hand, Government Code §831.4 provides absolute immunity. ( Amberger-Warren, supra, at p. 1084.) Additionally, Plaintiff argues that trail immunity does not negate a duty to warn of a dangerous condition, but again cites to a case involving design immunity, e.g., Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d 318, 327. Again, this is a trail immunity case, and not a design defect case, and if trial immunity applies, it provides the City with absolute immunity.

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

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

The trail immunity operates without reference to the design immunity.

The undisputed facts demonstrate Plaintiffs were injured on a Class 1 Bikeway that constitutes a “trail” for purposes of Government Code §831.4(b). (See SSUF Nos. 4, 5 and 8; See also Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1103; and Streets and Highways Code §890.4(a)). Additionally, the undisputed facts demonstrate the bikeway was designed and used for recreational purposes, such that “trail immunity” applies.

Based on the trail immunity statute, Government Code § 831.4 discussed below, a public entity is not required to warn of the dangerous condition of a trail. (Astenius v. State of California (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 472, 476 [affirming order sustaining demurrer based on trail immunity statute]; Nealy v.

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.

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.

Trail immunity extends to claims arising from poor design, and poor maintenance. (See Arvizu, 21 Cal.App.5th at 768 (Trail immunity must extend to … claims for lack of a handrail”); Astenius v. State of California (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 472, 476 ( “[e]ven assuming those sections create a mandatory duty [to maintain public trails], any breach of that duty comes within the scope of the immunity provisions of section 831.4.”); Loeb, 43 Cal.App.5th 421, 424).

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.)

Discussion Trail Immunity: Government Code 831.4(b) Defendants first argue that they are immune from liability pursuant to Gov. Code section 831.4(b). Gov. Code § 831.4 gives immunity to public entities for injuries caused by the condition of walkways if they constitute a trail within the meaning of the statute. Gov.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that "trail immunity" under Government Code section 831.4 provides a complete defense against Plaintiff's claim, which arose from injuries she sustained while visiting Sweetwater Lane Park and using the paved pathway that encircles the park.

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”).)

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

The only disputed fact is whether the area where Plaintiff fell is a “trail” within the meaning of Government Code § 831.4. Analysis Trail Immunity (Govt.

The trail immunity provided by Government Code section 831.4 was clearly designed to prevent litigation based on the conditions of a recreational trail like the one at issue here. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, as Defendant is immune from liability under Government Code section 831.4, and Defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.

The trail immunity of Section 831.4 applies under these circumstances. (See Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984 [Because the danger here is inherently connected to and exists only because of its connection with the trail, we include the doctrine of trail immunity bars Reed’s claims against the City and its employees”].) Plaintiffs also argue that any immunity that may exist would be qualified only, not absolute.

The trail immunity of Section 831.4 applies under these circumstances. (See Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984 [Because the danger here is inherently connected to and exists only because of its connection with the trail, we include the doctrine of trail immunity bars Reed’s claims against the City and its employees”].) Plaintiffs also argue that any immunity that may exist would be qualified only, not absolute.

The trail immunity of Section 831.4 applies under these circumstances. (See Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984 [Because the danger here is inherently connected to and exists only because of its connection with the trail, we include the doctrine of trail immunity bars Reed’s claims against the City and its employees”].) Plaintiffs also argue that any immunity that may exist would be qualified only, not absolute.

The trail immunity of Section 831.4 applies under these circumstances. (See Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984 [Because the danger here is inherently connected to and exists only because of its connection with the trail, we include the doctrine of trail immunity bars Reed’s claims against the City and its employees”].) Plaintiffs also argue that any immunity that may exist would be qualified only, not absolute.

The trail immunity of Section 831.4 applies under these circumstances. (See Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984 [Because the danger here is inherently connected to and exists only because of its connection with the trail, we include the doctrine of trail immunity bars Reed’s claims against the City and its employees”].) Plaintiffs also argue that any immunity that may exist would be qualified only, not absolute.

The trail immunity of Section 831.4 applies under these circumstances. (See Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984 [Because the danger here is inherently connected to and exists only because of its connection with the trail, we include the doctrine of trail immunity bars Reed’s claims against the City and its employees”].) Plaintiffs also argue that any immunity that may exist would be qualified only, not absolute.

The trail immunity of Section 831.4 applies under these circumstances. (See Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984 [Because the danger here is inherently connected to and exists only because of its connection with the trail, we include the doctrine of trail immunity bars Reed’s claims against the City and its employees”].) Plaintiffs also argue that any immunity that may exist would be qualified only, not absolute.

Trail immunity 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 & whether or not the trail is paved. (Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1074, 1078.) In considering whether trail immunity applies, the court must consider (1) whether the alleged accident occurred on a trail under the accepted definitions of a trail and (2) whether the injury was caused by conditions of the trail.

, and that the doctrine of trail immunity has been impermissibly expanded.

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.

Additionally, Plaintiff fails to show that the fact of alternative access somehow mitigates against a finding that trail immunity applies. Finally, Plaintiff spends substantial time with dictionary definitions of the word “trail” and the word” stairs.” The Court acknowledges that the dictionary defines the two words differently.

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.

However, the Court remains of the opinion that “trail immunity” as set forth in Government Code section 831.4 does not apply to the dangerous condition Plaintiff alleges here – which is the “washout hole” in the lawn near the sidewalk. As in Toeppe v.

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.)

Farnham, which concluded that a class 1 bikeway was a trail within the meaning of the trail immunity statute. Nonetheless, litigants continue to challenge the applicability of the absolute immunity to class 1 bikeways.

Since then, upon further discovery, analysis, and investigation, Defendants counsel determined that Ocean Avenue Protected Bikeway, the location of the accident, is a trail within the meaning of Government Code section 831.4, meaning that Defendant believes it can assert the affirmative defense of trail immunity. Defendant has complied with the procedural requirements of CRC, rule 3.1324. Defendants proposed First Amended Answer is attached as Exhibit A to its moving papers.

City argues it is entitled to trail immunity.

Defendant argues it is absolutely immune under the recreational trail immunity set forth in Gov. Code, § 831.4 as Plaintiff fell. Defendant also argues it is immune from all common law causes of action, including negligence, under Gov. Code, § 81.5. Plaintiff argues the dangerous condition did not exist on a “trail” within the meaning of Gov. Code, § 831.4, instead it was in a parking lot, and as such the immunity does not apply.

The site on the incident would be considered to be a trail under both case law and GC § 831.4. The subject location was a wide, paved asphalt path intended for bicyclistsgiven that bike paths are considered to be trails under GC § 831.4, trail immunity is applicable. So long as the injury was caused by a physical deficiency of the trail, the form of that physical deficiency is irrelevant; unless Plaintiff now alleges that he was injured off the subject trail, trail immunity applies.

There is a triable issue of material fact as to whether defendant is immune from liability as a result of trail immunity. (UMF 108; Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Additional Disputed Fact 11; Gov. Code, § 831.4; Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1103.) If no hearing is requested, defendant is directed to prepare a formal order consistent with this ruling and in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(g) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

Trail Immunity (Gov. Code, § 831.4) Defendant contends it is immune from plaintiff’s claim under Government Code section 831.4, which immunizes public entities from defects existing on unpaved roads and trails. (Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1078; see also Toeppe v. City of San Diego (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 921, 932.)

The Court noted that, “the trail immunity statute provides immunity for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of trails, but it does not provide immunity for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of adjacent public properties unless the properties are deemed related for policy reasons.” [Emphasis added.] Id., at 532. This holds unless the adjacent properties are deemed related, i.e. a hill that is naturally part of the trail as in Amberger-Warren.

The City moves for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) plaintiff cannot prove the City had notice of the dangerous condition; and (2) the immunity under Government Code section 831.4 (so-called “trail immunity”) applies. The court agrees and so grants the motion. Discussion 1. Constructive notice.

Here, Defendant argues it is immune from liability under Government Code section 831.4, otherwise known as trail immunity.

Analysis re: Trail Immunity under Government Code § 831.4 Government Code § 835 states in pertinent part, Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury& Government Code § 831.4 states: A public entity, public employee, or a grantor of a public easement to a public entity for any of the following purposes, is not liable for an

Trail Immunity The City also contends trail immunity precludes its liability here.

Discussion Defendant The Regents of the University of California, erroneously sued as UC Regents and Botanical Gardens of UCLA (“Defendant”), seeks to add an eleventh affirmative defense of trail immunity under Government Code §831.4. Defendant also submits the declaration of its counsel to set forth the effect of the amendment, why it is necessary and proper, the facts giving rise to the amendment, and why it was not made earlier. Wang Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.

“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.

The principal issues in Amberger were: (1) whether the pathway in question was a "sidewalk" for purposes of section 831.4, and, if so, whether a sidewalk can ever be a "trail" under the statute; and (2) whether trail immunity precludes liability for the design and location, as well as the maintenance, of a trail. The court held that the pathway was a trail under the statute, even if it could be characterized as a sidewalk, and that trail immunity covers claims arising from a trail's design and location.

Trail Immunity Park District also argues it is immune from liability pursuant to the doctrine of trail immunity. Plaintiff contends the Park District has not shown the roadway here is a trail such that immunity would protect the Park District from liability.

…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.

Code, § 831.4.)

Second, as to the City’s argument it is immune under Government Code § 831.4, trail immunity “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 ... whether or not the trail is paved.” (Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1074, 1078.)

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.

Code §§ 830.4, 831.2 and 831.4. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Plead Facts to Demonstrate that the Claims in this Action Lie Outside the Breadth of the Statutory Immunity under Gov. Code § 831.4 (Trail Immunity) Government entities and grantors of public easements are shielded from liability for injury caused by a condition of any recreational trailor unpaved access road to scenic or recreational uses.

Thus, the count is subject to Government Code section 835 and the related trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4.

The City answered the complaint on August 10, 2021, asserting several affirmative defenses including Trail Immunity, no dangerous condition of public property pursuant to Government Code §835, and lack of actual or constructive notice under Government Code §835.2. (SSUMF, Fact No. 2, and plaintiff’s response.) The City now moves for summary judgment or adjudication on the basis that the location is a trail, entitling it to trail immunity pursuant to Government Code section 831.4.

In finding that trail immunity did not apply, the court emphasized the trail here did not provide the only access to the dangerous condition and that the dangerous condition of the tree existed whether plaintiff was walking on the trail or sitting at a nearby picnic table. (Id. at 928.) Because the dangerousness of the tree was independent of the trail, trail immunity does not apply in this case. (Id. at 929.)

Trail Immunity On the face of the complaint, the claims are barred by Defendant’s statutory trail immunity. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the conditions of a trail that was owned and maintained by Defendant. (Complaint §{ 3; 4; 7.) There are no facts alleged that establish an exception to the immunity and the complaint is uncertain as to what claims are not covered by trail immunity. (Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984; Amberger-Warren y.

Trail Immunity On the face of the complaint, the claims are barred by Defendant’s statutory trail immunity. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the conditions of a trail that was owned and maintained by Defendant. (Complaint §{ 3; 4; 7.) There are no facts alleged that establish an exception to the immunity and the complaint is uncertain as to what claims are not covered by trail immunity. (Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984; Amberger-Warren y.

Trail Immunity On the face of the complaint, the claims are barred by Defendant’s statutory trail immunity. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the conditions of a trail that was owned and maintained by Defendant. (Complaint §{ 3; 4; 7.) There are no facts alleged that establish an exception to the immunity and the complaint is uncertain as to what claims are not covered by trail immunity. (Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984; Amberger-Warren y.

Trail Immunity On the face of the complaint, the claims are barred by Defendant’s statutory trail immunity. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the conditions of a trail that was owned and maintained by Defendant. (Complaint §{ 3; 4; 7.) There are no facts alleged that establish an exception to the immunity and the complaint is uncertain as to what claims are not covered by trail immunity. (Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984; Amberger-Warren y.

Trail Immunity On the face of the complaint, the claims are barred by Defendant’s statutory trail immunity. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the conditions of a trail that was owned and maintained by Defendant. (Complaint §{ 3; 4; 7.) There are no facts alleged that establish an exception to the immunity and the complaint is uncertain as to what claims are not covered by trail immunity. (Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984; Amberger-Warren y.

Trail Immunity On the face of the complaint, the claims are barred by Defendant’s statutory trail immunity. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the conditions of a trail that was owned and maintained by Defendant. (Complaint §{ 3; 4; 7.) There are no facts alleged that establish an exception to the immunity and the complaint is uncertain as to what claims are not covered by trail immunity. (Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984; Amberger-Warren y.

Trail Immunity On the face of the complaint, the claims are barred by Defendant’s statutory trail immunity. (Gov. Code, § 831.4.) Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the conditions of a trail that was owned and maintained by Defendant. (Complaint §{ 3; 4; 7.) There are no facts alleged that establish an exception to the immunity and the complaint is uncertain as to what claims are not covered by trail immunity. (Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5" 979, 984; Amberger-Warren y.

Based on this, the Court of Appeal found that trail immunity did not apply because the alleged dangerous condition—i.e., the negligently maintained eucalyptus tree—was independent of the trail, the plaintiff did not have to use the trail to be exposed to the purported dangerous condition, and there were no allegations that the plaintiff was harmed based on a condition of the trail or that she was injured because of the location or design of the trail. ( Id . at 927-28, 931.)

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.

Accordingly, it appears that the trail immunity applies. “The plainly stated purpose of immunity for recreational activities on public land is 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.’ “ (Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 602–603.)

The Court declines to find trail immunity as a matter of law. Order For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment is denied.

Further, the SAC does not contain facts sufficient to show that the claim lies outside the breadth of any applicable statutory immunity – and specifically, trail immunity under Gov. Code § 831.4. (Lopez, supra, 40 Cal.3d at 796; Soliz, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at 585; Gates, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at 494.) Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs have articulated how they may amend the SAC to cure the defects. The demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.

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.

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.

Additionally, the Court notes that the immunity provided in Government Code section 831.4, subdivision (b), applies to trails that have a mixed use. (Hartt v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1391, 1400.) The design and use will control what an object is, not the name.” (Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1103). Where a bike path is used for recreational purposes, trail immunity applies. (Burgueno v.

Trail Immunity Similarly, City has not met its initial burden trail immunity applies. Under Government Code section 831.4(a)–(b), a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the condition of any trail, or certain unpaved roads, which provides "access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports," and other types of "recreational or scenic areas."

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.

Trail Immunity under Gov. Code section 831.4 Defendant also argues Decedent’s recreational use of the paved road at the time of his accident implicates trail immunity pursuant to Gov. Code §831.4. Defendant cites Loeb v. County of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 431-432.) to establish that a pathway running through a park used in part for recreational purposes is considered a trail for trail immunity purposes.

Plaintiff, in her opposing papers, generally states [a]ll of the cases cited by Defendants as related to trail immunity do not comprehend a consumer/customer, such as Plaintiff here, using a walkway to access a hotel restaurant&[A]ll of these cases cited by Defendants are trails that exist out in the wilderness&. In fact, the statute does not require a trail be exclusively used for recreational purposes.

Defendant also moves for summary judgment based on recreational trail immunity. Government entities are shieled from liability for injury caused by a condition of any recreational trail or unpaved access road to scenic or recreational areas. (See Gov. Code, § 831.4.) Recreational trail immunity overrides any liability arising from a “dangerous condition” on such trails or roads. (Gov. Code, § 831.4, subds. (a)-(b), Reed v. City of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 979, 981-984.)

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.

Discussion Defendant has not established that the recreational path/trail immunity under Gov Code § 831.4 applies, since Defendant’s evidence establishes that Plaintiff’s accident occurred on Arroyo Avenue where the chain and stanchions are located, not the adjacent path. See Defendant’s Ex. D, Plaintiff’s Ex. 6. The gate area that included chains drawn between stanchions does not cross the adjacent bike path. Id. Therefore, Fact 1 is not proved.

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.

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.

Code § 831.4. Moreover, Defendant has not established that a “public thoroughfare” falls within the immunity provided by Government Code § 831.4. Finally, even if Defendant could show that the public thoroughfare is a trail within the immunity of Gov.

Here, whether Defendant is entitled to immunity under Government Code section 831.4 (Trail Immunity) is a new matter in which Defendant would have the burden of proof at the time of trial. However, Defendant failed to raise Section 831.4 as an affirmative defense in its answer filed on November 9, 2018. Thus, the Court cannot grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant based upon Section 831.4. 3.

The courts have interpreted that a paved bicycle path qualifies as a "trail" under the provisions of Section 831.4(b). (Carroll v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 606, 609-610.) In her opposition, Plaintiff argues that immunity under Section 831.4 is conditioned upon a reasonable attempt to provide adequate warning of the existence of dangerous conditions of the pathway.

Trail Immunity A public entity is not liable for injury caused by a condition of any "trail" used for the purpose of "riding." Gov. Code 831.4(a) and (b). Generally, this immunity applies to paved bikeways. See Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 1097, 1100. Farnham involved a Class I bikeway (Sepulveda Basin Bikeway) that was "paved and runs along the perimeter of Balboa Park in the City." Id. at 1099. A Class I bikeway exists separately from a street or highway.

Government Code § 831.4 Defendant argues that Government Code § 831.4 provides immunity from liability because the “gangway” is a recreational trail.

Regents more particularly argue that they have statutory immunity under Government Code section 831.4, subdivision (b), for the type of injury alleged here.

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

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.

County argues that: (a) the County is absolutely immune from liability pursuant to Government Code § 831.4 and (b) plaintiff cannot establish one or more elements of the dangerous condition cause of action.

The material facts do not establish that the immunity under Gov Code § 831.4 applies where it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s injury was not caused by a condition of a road or trail providing access for recreational purposes. Gov Code § 831.4 There is no dispute that the tree branch at issue fell into Plaintiff’s backyard. UF 2. The tree branch came from a tree situated on property owned in common by a homeowners association in the Old Orchard II tract, in a small park. UF 3.

Defendant contends that the Canal Trail Crossing is a trail as (1) it is called the “Contra Costa Canal Regional Trail;” (2) it is used for recreational activities (like those described in 831.4(a)); (3) California courts have found paved bicycle paths to be 'trails' for purposes of trail immunity, and (4) the trail's design and location are highly relevant to trail immunity – i.e. it was designed to intersect with Bancroft Road.

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.

A reasonable trier of fact might conclude that the Venice Boardwalk is not a trail subject to Government Code Section 831.4. There is a triable issue whether the Dudley entrance to the Boardwalk was a dangerous condition. The bollards are clearly there for the purpose of restricting general vehicle access to the Boardwalk. Was the danger of a rogue vehicle entering the Boardwalk foreseeable? Plaintiff's Objections to the Defendant's Evidence: 1 through 9 Overruled

There is triable issue whether the pathway is a trail within the meaning of Government Code section 831.4. 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.

Code §831.4. The Motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice. Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.

The court finds that the proposed amendments as to defendant County are insufficient to state a cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision, the claim is barred by the claim presentation requirements, and the allegations do not show that the trail immunity does not bar such claim. As to the claim for punitive damages, the allegations do not show conduct that is malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent.

Code § 831.4. See Issue 5. As a matter of law, government entities are shielded from liability for injury caused by a condition of any recreational trail or unpaved access road to scenic or recreational areas. This immunity overrides any liability arising from a “dangerous condition” on such trails or roads. [Gov.C. § 831.4(a) & (b); Montenegro v. City of Bradury (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 924, 929-931— immunity not limited to unimproved land; see Hartt v.

Government Code Section 831.4 "gives governmental immunity to any trail [or unpaved road] which provides access to all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas." (Carroll v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 606, 609 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) "A public entity is absolutely immune from liability for injuries caused by a physical defect of a recreational trail." (Burgueno v.