Haytasingh v. City of San Diego, D076228

Background:

On Aug. 3, 2013 Michael Haytasingh was surfing at Mission Beach when City lifeguard Ashley Marino, operating a City-owned personal watercraft (PWC), executed a left/U-turn; Haytasingh dove off his board to avoid collision, hit the ocean floor, and suffered catastrophic injuries.
Plaintiffs sued the City and Marino for negligence and later amended to plead exceptions under Gov. Code § 831.7 (failure to guard/warn of another hazardous activity and gross negligence) after the trial court granted summary adjudication as to ordinary negligence based on § 831.7 immunity.
At trial the jury was asked only whether Marino and the City were grossly negligent; the jury answered "No," and the trial court entered judgment for defendants.
Plaintiffs appealed, challenging (1) the trial court’s ruling that § 831.7 bars their ordinary negligence claim and (2) the court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the Harbors & Navigation Code § 655.2 five-mile-per-hour speed limit applied to Marina (City lifeguards) operating PWCs in the circumstances presented.
The Court of Appeal held § 831.7 does immunize public entities/employees from ordinary negligence for injuries arising out of statutorily enumerated hazardous recreational activities (including surfing), but reversed and remanded because the trial court erred (and that error was prejudicial) in concluding § 655.2 did not apply to City lifeguards and in failing to instruct the jury accordingly.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Does Gov. Code § 831.7 bar an ordinary negligence claim arising from a lifeguard’s operation of a PWC while plaintiff was surfing?	§ 831.7 is a premises/property-based immunity and does not bar vehicular/vessel negligence by a public employee (Haytasingh).	§ 831.7 broadly immunizes public entities/employees from liability for injuries "arising out of" hazardous recreational activities (surfing).	Held: § 831.7’s plain language is broad and applies; the court did not err in granting summary adjudication on ordinary negligence.
2) Does Harbors & Navigation Code § 655.2 (5 mph limit near bathers/shore) apply to City lifeguards operating PWCs not displaying blue lights?	Yes — § 655.2 applies to lifeguards; local ordinance cannot exempt lifeguards from state speed law; trial court erred by excluding it.	City argued Chapter 5 exemptions (Harb. & Nav. Code § 650.1) and local ordinance (SDMC § 63.20.15) exempt or displace § 655.2.	Held: The City is not exempt under § 650.1 from § 655.2; local ordinance conflict is preempted to the extent it removes the limited statutory exemption. § 655.2 applies where its narrow exceptions (direct law-enforcement vessels with blue lights) are not met.
3) Was the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on § 655.2 prejudicial to plaintiffs’ gross-negligence claim?	Yes — speed law provides an objective standard relevant to whether conduct was an "extreme departure" (gross negligence); omission was prejudicial.	No — any speed-law evidence pertains only to negligence per se, not gross negligence; omission harmless.	Held: Error was prejudicial. The 5 mph limit was relevant to the standard of care and to gross-negligence assessment; omission likely affected the jury’s verdict. Reversal and remand required.
4) Does the San Diego municipal speed ordinance (SDMC § 63.20.15) exempt lifeguards from all speed limits and thus render § 655.2 inapplicable?	Plaintiffs: No — SDMC conflicts with state law and § 660 preemption, so its exemption cannot displace § 655.2.	City: SDMC governs local waters and exempts governmental employees; § 655.2 applies "only" where not otherwise regulated locally.	Held: SDMC’s blanket exemption for government employees conflicts with § 655.2 and is preempted insofar as it contradicts the state’s limited exemption (direct law-enforcement vessels with blue lights).

Key Cases Cited

Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist., 38 Cal.4th 148 (interpreting § 831.7 and its relationship to premises-liability framework)
Decker v. City of Imperial Beach, 209 Cal.App.3d 349 (holding § 831.7 immunity applies broadly to injuries "arising out of" hazardous recreational activity)
Klein v. United States, 50 Cal.4th 68 (construing Civil Code § 846 and vehicular negligence claims; relied on by plaintiffs but distinguished)
Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (standard for prejudice from jury-instruction error)
City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (discussing definition/degree of gross negligence)