243 Cal. App. 4th 1052
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Adrian Burgueno, a UCSC student, was fatally injured while bicycling downhill on the Great Meadow Bikeway on campus in February 2011.
- The Great Meadow Bikeway is a paved path built to facilitate bicycle transportation to/from UCSC; it also is used by recreational bicyclists and provides access to mountain-bike trails in nearby redwood forests.
- Plaintiffs (Adrian’s mother and sister) sued the Regents of the University of California for dangerous condition of public property and wrongful death, alleging design and warning defects on the bikeway.
- The Regents moved for summary judgment asserting absolute immunity under Government Code § 831.4 (trail/recreational immunity).
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the bikeway falls within § 831.4 because it is used for recreational purposes and provides access to recreational areas, so the Regents have trail immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Great Meadow Bikeway is a "trail" under Gov. Code § 831.4 | Bikeway is primarily a commuter transportation corridor, not a recreational trail; incidental recreational use insufficient | Bikeway is a trail: it is used for recreation and provides access to recreational areas; § 831.4 applies to paved bike paths | Held: § 831.4 applies. Mixed-use (commuting + recreational) paths are covered; immunity bars the claims |
| Whether plaintiff’s non-recreational use at time of injury defeats immunity | Adrian was commuting (nonrecreational), so immunity shouldn’t apply | Immunity applies regardless of whether injured person was engaged in recreation when injured; statute focuses on trail use and access | Held: The decedent’s non-recreational purpose at time of accident does not defeat § 831.4 immunity |
| Whether dual/mixed use creates an exception to § 831.4 | Mixed use should preclude immunity because primary purpose is transportation | Legislature did not carve out mixed-use exception; courts interpret § 831.4 to cover dual-use trails | Held: Dual or mixed use does not avoid trail immunity under § 831.4 |
| Whether providing evidence of University responsibility and revenue affects immunity | University’s responsibility for safety and funding means it wouldn’t close the path, so immunity unnecessary | Statutory immunity is not conditioned on entity’s finances or whether entity would keep area open | Held: Such policy/financial arguments do not negate statutory immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (establishes de novo appellate review and summary judgment burdens)
- Armenio v. County of San Mateo, 28 Cal.App.4th 413 (trail immunity applies to paved trails used for recreation)
- Carroll v. County of Los Angeles, 60 Cal.App.4th 606 (county immune for bicycle accident on paved bike path)
- Farnham v. City of Los Angeles, 68 Cal.App.4th 1097 (city immune for bicycle accident on paved bikeway)
- Prokop v. City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.4th 1332 (§ 831.4 applies to bike paths and access trails)
- Treweek v. City of Napa, 85 Cal.App.4th 221 (§ 831.4 covers trails providing access to recreational activities)
- Montenegro v. City of Bradbury, 215 Cal.App.4th 924 (dual use does not defeat § 831.4 immunity)
- Hartt v. County of Los Angeles, 197 Cal.App.4th 1391 (mixed recreation/service use does not circumvent § 831.4 immunity)
- Baptist v. Robinson, 143 Cal.App.4th 151 (summary judgment procedural framework)