Garcia v. American Golf Corp.
11 Cal. App. 5th 532
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jacobo G. Garcia (minor) was struck in the head by an errant golf ball while his mother pushed him on a 13-foot pedestrian walkway (part of the Rose Bowl Loop) adjacent to the Brookside Golf Course, owned by the City of Pasadena and operated by American Golf.
- The walkway is separated from the golf course by a concrete wall and ~7.5-foot chain-link fence; warning signs on the fence stated pedestrians assume the risk of golf balls, but City employees disclaimed knowledge about who posted or maintained those signs.
- The golf course is a commercially operated, revenue-generating municipal course; City installed safety nets at certain holes in 2001 after a prior incident.
- Appellants sued City for dangerous condition of public property; City moved for summary judgment claiming trail immunity (Gov. Code § 831.4) and other statutory immunities, plus defenses of adequate warning and assumption of risk.
- The trial court granted summary judgment based on trail immunity; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City is entitled to trail immunity under Gov. Code § 831.4 for injury caused by errant golf ball from adjacent golf course | The injury was caused by a dangerous condition of the golf course (narrow fairways, inadequate trees/fences), not the trail; trail immunity should not shield the golf course | Walkway qualifies as a trail and § 831.4 immunizes the City from liability for injuries caused by conditions related to trails | Reversed: even assuming the walkway is a trail, § 831.4 does not bar liability for a dangerous condition of a commercially operated, revenue-generating golf course that caused harm to trail users when the golf course condition (not the trail) caused the injury |
| Whether warning signs preclude liability | Signs are inadequate, possibly not installed or maintained by City; expert says placement and wording fail to adequately warn pedestrians | Posted warnings on fence and assumption of risk bar recovery | Not resolved on summary judgment: lack of evidence City installed/maintains signs and expert evidence create triable issue about adequacy of warnings |
| Whether assumption of risk bars recovery | Plaintiffs were nonparticipants in golf and did not assume primary risk | City argues plaintiffs knowingly encountered risk from adjacent golf course | Primary assumption not applicable; at most secondary assumption of risk, which is for comparative-fault apportionment — triable issue remains |
| Whether other statutory immunities (design/discretionary) apply | Plaintiffs challenge dangerous condition of golf course specifically and contend those immunities don’t defend the golf-course condition | City invokes design immunity (§ 830.6), discretionary immunity (§ 820.2, § 815.2) for Loop design | Court rejects summary judgment on those bases — design/discretionary immunity for the Loop does not automatically shield liability for a dangerous condition of the separate commercial golf course |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, 30 Cal.4th 139 (location or physical condition of public property can be a dangerous condition)
- Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont, 143 Cal.App.4th 1074 (trail immunity and relatedness test: location and design may be immunized together)
- Prokop v. City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.4th 1332 (gated bikeway feature was part of trail and covered by § 831.4)
- Leyva v. Crocket & Co., Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th 1105 (trail adjacent to golf course: trail immunity can apply when trail location is integral to the injury analysis)
- Shin v. Ahn, 42 Cal.4th 482 (primary assumption of risk in golf context — limited to participants in sport)