In Helm v. City of Los Angeles, et al. ordered published May 13, 2024, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in a case alleging dangerous condition of public property. The defendant city owns the area where the plaintiff was injured, and the defendant county maintains the area. The county installed numerous discarded wooden telephone poles, two feet apart, to to create a defined barrier between vehicular traffic and trails down to a lake. The poles block vehicular traffic but not pedestrian traffic. The trails led to camping areas and a day-use area with a beach used for various recreational activities. Two posts were eight-to-ten feet apart and spanned by a wire cable, two inches off the ground, that could be unlocked by park personnel for vehicular access. The plaintiff saw three paths that led toward the beach area and water. Two looked unsafe to him. The third looked like the best option. It was the space with the wire cable. He did not see the cable, and tripped on it. He sued the defendant entities for dangerous condition of public property, negligence, and premises liability. The trial court granted the defendant entities summary judgment based on Government Code section 831.4 trail immunity. The plaintiff contended there was a triable issue of fact on whether he was walking on a trail, and that the wooden poles and wire cable were not an integral feature of any trail.
The appellate court rejected these contentions. Whether a property is considered a trail under section 831.4 turns on considerations including g (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. The plaintiff identified the path as a trail during his deposition, and the defendants offered evidence that the pathway was a trail pedestrians could use to access the beach area. The evidence conclusively established that the pathway was designed for recreational use. Plaintiff intended to use the path to access the beach, and that it appeared others had used the path for the same purpose. The purpose of the trail immunity statute supports the conclusion that the subject pathway to the lake was a trail, because the pathway allowed people to more easily access the beach where they could engage in water based recreational activities. Trail immunity covers integral features of a trail. The plaintiff contended that the poles and cable were not integral parts of the trail because their stated purpose was to confine vehicular traffic to the roadway. But there was no intention for them to prohibit people from using the pathway to access the lake. The poles and cable created a defined barrier and delineated the trails. They also increased safety for people walking along the pathway by protecting them from vehicles.
Comments