Alana M. v. .State of California CA1/3
245 Cal. App. 4th 1482
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Alana M., age 3, was camping at Campsite 41 in Portola Redwoods State Park when a native tanoak tree 60 feet from the campsite snapped and fell, causing severe brain injury.
- Portola Redwoods is a 2,800-acre state park; about 160 acres contain man-made amenities (roads, parking, campsites, trails, restrooms). Portola Campground (63 sites) was installed among existing trees.
- The tree that fell showed rot and structural defects; it was not planted or otherwise artificially altered. No evidence showed artificial changes to the tree or the land within 24 feet of it.
- Plaintiffs sued the State for premises liability and dangerous condition of public property; the State moved for summary judgment invoking Government Code § 831.2 (natural condition immunity for unimproved public property).
- Plaintiffs contended a triable issue existed because the Department’s Tree Hazard Program covered all campground trees, suggesting the Department treated the campground as a “developed” area.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the State; on appeal the court affirmed, holding the tree was a natural condition of unimproved property and § 831.2 immunity applied as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 831.2 immunity applies when a natural object (tree) growing near an improved campsite falls and injures a visitor | The Tree Hazard Program and campground amenities show the State considered the area developed, creating a triable issue that the tree stood on "improved" property outside § 831.2 | The tree was a native, naturally occurring object with no artificial change at its location; improvements at nearby campsites do not convert the tree’s location to "improved" property | Affirmed: § 831.2 applies; the tree was a natural condition of unimproved property as a matter of law |
| Whether voluntary safety measures (inspections, signage, fees, amenities) waive or negate natural condition immunity | Department’s inspections and program scope indicate treatment of campground as developed, implying liability | Case law: voluntary services, amenities, or inspections do not necessarily create liability or convert unimproved land into improved property | Held: Department’s belief or inspections do not create a triable issue; immunity remains |
| Whether the relevant location is where the injury occurred or where the natural condition was located | Plaintiff argued campsite (injury location) is the relevant location | Defendant: relevant location is where the natural condition (tree) grew | Held: Relevant location is where the natural condition grew; falling onto improved property does not defeat immunity |
| Whether human conduct or improvements contributed causally to the danger (so as to defeat immunity) | Plaintiff argued campsites increased likelihood of injury because they bring people near trees | Defendant argued no evidence improvements contributed to tree’s danger or caused its failure | Held: No evidence improvements or human conduct created, contributed or exacerbated the danger; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Milligan v. City of Laguna Beach, 34 Cal.3d 829 (1974) (discusses purpose and scope of Government Claims Act immunity)
- McCauley v. City of San Diego, 190 Cal.App.3d 981 (1987) (natural condition immunity applies to inherent natural dangers)
- Fuller v. State of California, 51 Cal.App.3d 926 (1975) (interpretation that immunity should not be narrowly construed)
- Rendak v. State of California, 18 Cal.App.3d 286 (1971) (improvement of a portion of a park does not remove immunity from unimproved areas)
- Mercer v. State of California, 197 Cal.App.3d 158 (1987) (immunity bars failure-to-warn claims for natural conditions)
- Bartlett v. State of California, 199 Cal.App.3d 392 (1988) (amenities and fees do not automatically negate natural condition immunity)
- Keyes v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., 128 Cal.App.3d 882 (1982) (some artificial change at the location of the natural condition is required to defeat immunity)
- Eben v. State of California, 130 Cal.App.3d 416 (1982) (warning devices located away from natural hazard do not render area improved)
- Morin v. County of Los Angeles, 215 Cal.App.3d 184 (1989) (voluntary protective measures do not necessarily create liability)
- Arroyo v. State of California, 34 Cal.App.4th 755 (1995) (§ 831.2 absolute immunity and its interaction with other liability provisions)
- Meddock v. County of Yolo, 220 Cal.App.4th 170 (2013) (injury caused by a tree growing in unimproved area is covered by § 831.2 even if it falls onto improved property)
- Lupash v. City of Seal Beach, 75 Cal.App.4th 1428 (1999) (public access favored over imposing guarantor duty despite provision of safety services)