In Williams v. County of Sonoma, published September 28, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 5 affirmed a judgment against the defendant county after jury trial in a case alleging a dangerous condition of public property. The plaintiff biked down a hill on a county road, and encountered a pothole four feet long, three feet four inches wide, and four inches deep. The plaintiff's bike hit the pothole at 25 miles per hour and she was seriously injured. The trial court rejected the county's argument that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine barred the lawsuit.
The appellate court agreed. Assuming without deciding that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies to a dangerous condition of public property claim, the county failed to establish that the duty not to increase the danger inherent in the sport of cycling did not apply. The county argued that because it had no role in cycling or relationship with the plaintiff, it owed no duty to avoid unreasonably increasing the inherent risks. Whether the defendant owes such a duty is guided by the policy goals underlying the doctrine: avoiding chilling participation in the activity and thereby altering its fundamental nature. Imposing the duty on the county would not alter the fundamental nature of bicycling on county roads. Because the county owes a duty to all foreseeable users to maintain safe roads, and the pothole here would pose a danger not only to bikes but to other vehicles, imposing a duty on the county to eliminate such road hazards does not materially increase the county's burden and would not lead it to curtail the speed limit for cyclists or otherwise fundamentally alter the activity. The county waived the argument that it did not breach the duty by failing to repair the pothole.
Comments