Daily Blast October 18, 2016

Last week, in a case of first impression, the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento addressed California’s recreational use premises liability statute, Civil Code section 846 (“section 846”). In Wang, et al. v. Nibbelink, et al. (Oct. 13, 2016, C073871) __ Cal.App.5th __, the court held that the statute shields landowners from liability “for injury caused by a [permitted] recreational user to an off-premises nonparticipant.” (Slip opn., p. 25.) It also held that landowners are immunized for their negligent conduct contributing to the same injury. (Id. at p. 28.)

This case arose from an incident where a horse being used in an annual historical event called “Wagon Train” escaped from a meadow and injured Wang on an adjacent property. (Slip opn., p. 2.) The meadow landowners were not involved in the event apart from an agreement with the organizers of Wagon Train to allow participants to camp and contain their horses on their property overnight. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) Wang was also not involved in Wagon Train. She and her husband were staying at a lodge nearby. (Id. at p. 2.) Wang and her husband sued the meadow landowners for negligence. (Id. at p. 4.) The meadow landowners moved for summary judgment based on section 846, which encourages landowners to permit recreational uses of their land by shielding them from liability when such recreational users cause injuries to others. (Id. at pp. 1-2, 5.) The trial court granted summary judgment and plaintiffs appealed. (Id. at p. 7.)

The Court of Appeal affirmed holding that section 846 immunizes landowners from liability for “injury caused by a recreational user to an off-premises nonparticipant.” (Slip opn., p. 25.) The court construed the statutory language according to its plain meaning, reasoning that subpart (c) of the third paragraph “broadly relieves landowners of liability for ‘any injury to person’ caused by ‘any act’ of the recreational user.” (Id. at p. 17.) Therefore, the statute “is not limited to injuries to persons on the premises . . . [nor is it] limited to injuries to recreational participants.” (Ibid.) The court noted that, from a policy perspective, “[m]aking landowners liable when a recreational user injures an uninvolved person on adjacent property would undermine [the] legislative purpose to encourage private landowners to allow recreational use of their land.” (Id. at p. 19.) Indeed, “it would make no sense for a landowner to be immunized from liability toward a bystander inches within the property line, yet be liable for injury to a bystander standing inches outside the property line.” (Ibid.)

The court also concluded while section 846 does not expressly shield the landowner from liability for his own negligent acts, the statute implies such immunization. (Slip opn., p. 28.) The statute explicitly does not limit liability “for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.” (Ibid.) The court reasoned that this language implies that landowners are immunized from negligent failures to warn or prevent these same conditions. (Ibid.) Thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment as there were no triable issues of fact suggesting that section 846 did not apply. (Id. at p. 39.)

Related Attorneys

Related Practices

• Appellate