Trail Immunity in California

Accordingly, the Demurrer by Defendants County of Merced and Merced Irrigation District to the First Amended Complaint for Failure to Plead around Government Code § 831.4 Trail Immunity is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to plead around Government Code § 831.4 Trail Immunity. Any amended complaint must be filed by October 31, 2025.

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).

Code §¿831.4(a), (b).) Section 831.4 is part of the Government Tort Claims Act of 1963, which established both government liability and immunity for tortious acts.

Trail immunity Under Gov.

Even if a cause of action were stated, Government Code section 831.4 subsection (b) extends immunity to any trail—paved or unpaved—used for purposes described in section 831.4(a) and also to trails providing access to those activities. (Treweek v. City of Napa (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 221, 229-231; Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 603] [Moreover, “ ‘[t]o fulfill its purpose, trail immunity must extend to claims arising from the design of a trail, as well as its maintenance.’ [Citations.]

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

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

Code, § 831.4, the County is immune from liability, injuries caused by a physical defect of a recreational trail. Montenegro v. City of Bradbury (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 924, 929. Trail Immunity: Gov.

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.

Trail Immunity Defendant asserts Plaintiff’s claims against it are barred by governmental immunity under Section 831.4. The trail immunity statute creates absolute immunity from liability for a public entity for injuries caused by the condition of any “trail” used for recreational purposes. In Lee v.

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.

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.

Plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained injuries “while riding his bicycle when he came into contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition on the subject property, namely a pole that was negligently installed in the middle of a bicycle trail at Fairfield Linear Park” (FAC, § GN-1, emphasis added) establishes that Defendant, a public entity, is entitled to trail immunity. (Gov. Code § 831.4; Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 602-603; Burgueno v.

Plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained injuries “while riding his bicycle when he came into contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition on the subject property, namely a pole that was negligently installed in the middle of a bicycle trail at Fairfield Linear Park” (FAC, § GN-1, emphasis added) establishes that Defendant, a public entity, is entitled to trail immunity. (Gov. Code § 831.4; Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 602-603; Burgueno v.

Plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained injuries “while riding his bicycle when he came into contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition on the subject property, namely a pole that was negligently installed in the middle of a bicycle trail at Fairfield Linear Park” (FAC, § GN-1, emphasis added) establishes that Defendant, a public entity, is entitled to trail immunity. (Gov. Code § 831.4; Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 602-603; Burgueno v.

Plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained injuries “while riding his bicycle when he came into contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition on the subject property, namely a pole that was negligently installed in the middle of a bicycle trail at Fairfield Linear Park” (FAC, § GN-1, emphasis added) establishes that Defendant, a public entity, is entitled to trail immunity. (Gov. Code § 831.4; Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 602-603; Burgueno v.

Plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained injuries “while riding his bicycle when he came into contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition on the subject property, namely a pole that was negligently installed in the middle of a bicycle trail at Fairfield Linear Park” (FAC, § GN-1, emphasis added) establishes that Defendant, a public entity, is entitled to trail immunity. (Gov. Code § 831.4; Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 602-603; Burgueno v.

Plaintiff’s allegation that he sustained injuries “while riding his bicycle when he came into contact with a dangerous and hazardous condition on the subject property, namely a pole that was negligently installed in the middle of a bicycle trail at Fairfield Linear Park” (FAC, § GN-1, emphasis added) establishes that Defendant, a public entity, is entitled to trail immunity. (Gov. Code § 831.4; Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 594, 602-603; Burgueno v.

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”).)

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.

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

The Farham court held that the immunity provided by Government Code 831.4(a) applies to unpaved roads and the immunity provided by Government Code 831.4(c) applies to paved trails, etc. acquired by easement which provide access to unimproved property. See Farnham (1998) 68 CA4th 1097, 1101 citing Carroll (1997) 60 CA4th 606, 607-609.

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.

Trail Immunity Government Code section 831.4 provides immunity to public entities for injuries caused by the condition of walkways if they constitute a “trail” within the meaning of the statute.

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.

The Legislature did not exempt from immunity any trails that might be part of the street and highway system in general, and so a Class I Bikeway is a trail within the definition of section 831.4(b). (Id.) In opposition, Plaintiff primarily contends the trail immunity does not apply because the bike path was part of the City streets and highways and provided access to public transportation.

The Park District asserts trail immunity under Government Code § 831.4 and challenges the second cause of action based on failure to allege any negligent or wrongful act of an “employee” or “agent” of the Park District.

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.

The trail immunity (Govt Code 831.4) applies and is absolute. Immunity extends to maintenance of a trail. This case is analogous to Prokop v. City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.4th 1332. Defendant’s UMF’s 1, 2,3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are undisputed and established. UMF’s 16 and 16 are disputed and not established.

Motion for Summary Judgment At this time, the State moves for summary judgment on the following grounds: The City is immune per Gov Code §831.4; The condition on which Plaintiff fell was open and obvious.

The Court held that Government Code section 831.4 does not provide immunity for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of adjacent public properties. ( Garcia , supra, at p. 543.) In determining that trail immunity did not bar the plaintiffs claim, the appellate court applied the relatedness test articulated in Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074 (hereafter Amberger-Warren ).

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.

Code, § 831.4, subd. (a).) The immunity provided by this statute also applies to liability for injuries caused by the condition of any trail used for any of the above purposes, either paved or unpaved, including bicycle paths. (Gov. Code § 831.4, subd. (b); Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097.) The immunity extends to trails used solely for access to covered activities. (Treweek v. City of Napa (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 221, 224-229.) The immunity granted by this provision is absolute.

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 the ground that it is absolutely immune from liability for injuries sustained on a bike path pursuant to Government Code Section 831.4. ANALYSIS Defendant asserts that it is immune from liability under Government Code Section 831.4 for the type of injury alleged here.

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.

Recreational Trail Immunity City asserts that the sidewalk path is a recreational trail. Thus, City argues it is immune from liability under the recreational trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4, citing to Loeb v. County of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 421. City emphasizes Loeb is a fourth district court decision that is mandatory legal authority.

Recreational Trail Immunity City asserts that the sidewalk path is a recreational trail. Thus, City argues it is immune from liability under the recreational trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4, citing to Loeb v. County of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 421. City emphasizes Loeb is a fourth district court decision that is mandatory legal authority.

Recreational Trail Immunity City asserts that the sidewalk path is a recreational trail. Thus, City argues it is immune from liability under the recreational trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4, citing to Loeb v. County of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 421. City emphasizes Loeb is a fourth district court decision that is mandatory legal authority.

Recreational Trail Immunity City asserts that the sidewalk path is a recreational trail. Thus, City argues it is immune from liability under the recreational trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4, citing to Loeb v. County of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 421. City emphasizes Loeb is a fourth district court decision that is mandatory legal authority.

Moreover, trail immunity must extend to claims arising from the design of a trail, as well as its maintenance. ( Ibid. ) Plaintiff also asserts that [w]hether the Strand qualifies as a trail under § 831.4 is a question of fact that should not be decided by the Court. (Opp., pp. 4:15-5:14.) However, the Court disagrees.

First, as to trail immunity, defendant has established that plaintiff was injured while on a trail for purposes of Government Code section 831.4. (Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1078-1079; Carroll v. County of L.A. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 606, 607 & 609 [“a paved bicycle path qualifies as a ‘trail’ under the immunity provisions of Government Code section 831.4”]; Complaint, ¶ 2.)

Defendant contends it is immune from liability under the recreational trail immunity under Gov. Code, § 831.4. 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. Code § 831.4; Montenegro v. City of Bradury (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 924, 929-931; Reed v.

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.

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.)

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.

Defendant now moves for summary judgment, arguing the trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4, applies. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies. JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court grants Defendants request for judicial notice of Plaintiffs complaint, the first amended complaint, and Monrovia Municipal Code sections 12.32.010 and 12.32.020.

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.

Code § 831.4. Govt. Code § 831.4 allows for governmental immunity for injuries that are “caused by a condition of . . . [a]ny trail used for [riding].” Govt. Code § 831.4(a)-(b). The trail Plaintiff was riding on therefore appears to fall under the category of “any trail used for riding,” as considered by Govt. Code § 831.4(a)-(b).

City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1103 noted that “the appellate courts have so far unanimously interpreted the current wording of section 831.4, subdivision (b) to apply full immunity to any trail, paved or unpaved,” and that “a bicycle path (or bikeway) qualifies as a trail under subdivision (b).” The Court of Appeal recently affirmed the superior court’s sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend based on the trail immunity defense, in Nealy v.

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

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

Therefore, Plaintiff has not met her burden of production to create any triable issues of material fact that trail immunity bars her claims.

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

Code § 831.4 in general, claiming that a bikeway that is a part of the street and high system in general is covered under Section 831.4 for which no liability can be imposed. The cases on which Defendant relies are distinguishable. Section 831.4 has three subparts for which immunity applies. Subpart (a) does not apply, since it governs unpaved roadways. Plaintiffs’ decedent was allegedly riding at the edge of Huntington Drive, which is paved. FAC ¶ 7.

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.

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.

As such, the immunity provided by Government Code 831.4 applies.

Trail Immunity The Department of Parks and Recreation argues that trail immunity bars Niers claims against it if Niers attack occurred on a Department of Parks and Recreation trail, because Gov. Code §831.4 bars claims arising from the maintenance and condition of a trail used for recreation. (Demurrer, p. 6.)

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.

City of San Mateo (1994) [“There is no factual dispute that Sawyer Camp Trail is intended to be used for hiking and riding, two of the enumerated activities of section 831.4, subdivision (a).”] As such, to the extent the Complaint alleges the Santa Ana River Trail is a dangerous condition, the Court finds section 831.4 immunizes Defendant from same.

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.)

Code, § 831.4.)

Trail Immunity Government Code section 831.4 provides: 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 injury caused by a condition of: (a) 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Government Code section 831.4 states in its entirety: 831.4.

Trail Immunity 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.

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.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claim as pled is barred by Government Code section 831.4 immunity, and the Court will not allow Plaintiffs another opportunity to amend to plead facts demonstrating that this claim is in fact outside the scope of section 831.4 immunity. The Court denies leave to amend again because there is “no reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a cause of action” unless Plaintiffs allege completely different facts. ( MacLeod v.

Code, § 831.4, subds. (a).) The immunity provided by this statute also applies to liability for injuries caused by the condition of any trail that is used for any of the above purposes, either paved or unpaved, including bicycle paths. (Gov. Code § 831.4, subd. (b); Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097.)