242 Cal. App. 4th 460
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Casteen sued the County of San Diego for dangerous condition of public property and negligence after a rope swing broke at Damon Lane County Park, injuring him in 2012.
- The park is publicly owned, has no signs restricting rope swinging, and maintenance crew left debris and abandoned rope structures in the ravine.
- Casteen admitted a personal practice of checking the rope and branch before using the rope swing, recognizing inherent risk in rope swinging.
- County moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under Government Code section 831.7 for hazardous recreational activities and arguing the debris did not create a separate dangerous condition.
- Trial court denied the County’s motion, finding triable issues on debris in the ravine and its danger, and on maintenance-related exceptions to immunity.
- Appellate court granted writ, ruling the County is immune under 831.7 and the cited exceptions do not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 831.7 immunity bars Casteen's claims. | Casteen argues exceptions to immunity apply (maintenance, warning, gross negligence). | County contends immunity applies and exceptions do not negates liability. | Immunity applies; no liability based on exceptions failing. |
| Does the failure-to-warn exception apply to the ravine debris? | Debris in ravine created an additional dangerous condition requiring warning. | Debris did not pose a substantial risk beyond the inherent rope-swing hazard. | Failure-to-warn exception does not apply. |
| Does the failure-to-maintain exception apply to the rope swing or debris? | County failed to maintain the rope swing in good repair or remove it. | County did not construct the rope swing and had no duty to maintain it; debris not in use in the activity. | Failure-to-maintain exception does not apply. |
| Does the gross-negligence exception apply to a county's conduct here? | County's conduct could be grossly negligent by leaving debris and failing to police hazards. | There was no duty to police or remove abandoned equipment; no gross negligence proven. | Gross-negligence exception does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeVito v. State of California, 202 Cal.App.3d 264 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (warn/guard exception requires risk not inherent to activity)
- Perez v. City of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.App.4th 1380 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (inherent risks of tree rope swinging bar liability for warning)
- Fredette v. City of Long Beach, 187 Cal.App.3d 122 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (diving hazard case; danger apparent to users exercising due care)
- Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist., 38 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2006) (defines hazardous recreational activity and immunity scope)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment standard and immunities framework)
- Edwards v. California Sports, Inc., 206 Cal.App.3d 1288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (public safety regulation vs. private activity balance; duty limits)
- Keyes v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist., 128 Cal.App.3d 882 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (pleading sufficient to show immunity scope; initial burden)