Government Liability Update

Field-Trip Immunity Does Not Immunize Community College from Liability for Dangerous Condition of Property That Injures Member of Visiting Athletic Team

In Anselmo v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, published August 3, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 reversed  dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit on demurrer.  The plaintiff was a member of a community college women's volleyball team.  The team traveled to the defendant district's community college's campus to participate in an intercollegiate beach volleyball tournament.  The plaintiff alleged she was injured when she dove into the sand on the volleyball court and her knee hit a rock.  She sued the district for maintaining a dangerous condition of public property.  The trial court sustained the district's demurrer based on the field trips and excursions immunity provided to community colleges by title 5, section 55220 of the California Code of Regulations.

The appellate court ruled that the immunity does not apply to an injury suffered by a member of a visiting team during an intercollegiate athletic event.  The immunity protected the plaintiff's college from liability for operating the excursion that brought the plaintiff to the defendant's campus, but it did not protect the defendant from allegedly violating its duty not to increase the risk inherent in the sport by creating a dangerous condition of public property.  Otherwise, the district could be held liable to a student of the district for a dangerous condition, but could not be held liable to a visiting athlete injured by the same condition.

Skateboarder Assumed Risk of Injury from Alleged Dangerous Condition of Public Property

In Bertsch v. Mammoth Community Water Dist., published June 1, 2016, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant water district in a wrongful death action.  The decedent and his brother, on vacation with their father, were cruising around a neighborhood on their skateboards for fun.  After coming to an intersection where their father planned to meet them, they pushed their way up an incline in the road so that they could come down the hill on their boards.  Neither wore a helmet.  The decedent came down the hill at speed on the wrong side of the road.  The front wheels of his board hit a gap between the road and a concrete collar around a manhole cover.  He was ejected, struck his head on the pavement, and eventually passed away from his injuries.  The plaintiffs sued the water district under Government Code section 835 for maintaining a dangerous condition of public property.  The trial court ruled that the decedent had assumed the risk of injury from skateboarding.

The appellate court agreed.  The decedent's actions in pushing himself up the hill and skating down the road, on the wrong side, at speed and without a helmet, showed that he was using the skateboard for enjoyment or thrill, rather than merely for transportation.  The primary assumption of risk doctrine therefore applied.  The court rejected the argument that the water district could be held liable for increasing the risk to the decedent, because the duty to avoid increasing the risk applies only to those who are in an organized relationship with the injured party in relation to the activity.  It did not hold the roadway or manhole cover out as an appropriate or safe place to skateboard.  The policy reasons behind the assumption of risk doctrine, the court ruled, favor its application here.