56 Cal.App.5th 1021
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Mikayla Hoffmann (15 at the time) was severely injured in a collision on a motocross track located on property owned by Donald and Christina Young; the other rider was their 18‑year‑old son, Gunner Young.
- Gunner picked up Hoffmann, brought her to the property, and invited her to use the track; there was some evidence the track was generally limited to family.
- Hoffmann sued Gunner and his parents for negligence and premises liability; the jury found no liability, and Gunner’s parents successfully asserted recreational‑use immunity under Civil Code §846.
- §846 contains an exception that immunity does not apply where a person is “expressly invited … by the landowner” (subd. (d)(3)); the trial court instructed the jury that the exception applied only if the landowner (the parents) personally extended the invitation and only for recreational purposes.
- The Court of Appeal held that a child who lives with and is permitted by the landowner to reside on the property may, unless prohibited, expressly invite guests on the landowner’s behalf (implied agency), and that the trial court’s instructions were erroneous and prejudicial; it reversed the judgment as to the first two causes of action (negligence and premises liability) and affirmed in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a landowner’s child’s invitation qualifies as an "express invitation by the landowner" under §846(d)(3) | Calhoon: Yes — a resident child’s express invitation can negate §846 immunity; Gunner’s invitation counts | No — statute requires the landowner personally to invite; third parties or residents’ invitations do not suffice (Johnson) | Yes, where the child lives with and is permitted by the landowner to reside on the property and is not prohibited from inviting guests, the child’s express invitation operates as the landowner’s (implied agency) |
| Whether the trial court’s instruction limiting the exception to invitations personally made by the landowner was erroneous and prejudicial | Instruction was erroneous; it disposed of Hoffmann’s central theory and deprived jury of deciding express‑invitation issue | No prejudice because verdict form lacked a question on express invitation | Erroneous and prejudicial; the court’s ruling and instruction precluded any jury finding the exception applied, warranting reversal on those causes of action |
| Whether the express‑invitation exception requires the invitation to be for a recreational purpose | No — statute does not impose a recreational‑purpose requirement; invitation for any purpose abrogates immunity (Calhoon; PG&E) | Trial court treated invitation as limited to recreational purpose | Instructional language requiring recreational purpose was incorrect; express invitation need not be for recreational activity |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a new trial on Hoffmann’s negligent‑medical‑care claim (procedural/evidentiary rulings) | Hoffmann argued evidentiary rulings deprived her of due process and warranted new trial | Respondents argued no abuse of discretion; appellant failed to show prejudice | Appellant forfeited the argument by inadequate briefing; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoon v. Lewis, 81 Cal.App.4th 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (friend/resident’s invitation can bring plaintiff within §846(d)(3) exception)
- Johnson v. Unocal Corp., 21 Cal.App.4th 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (distinguishable: landowner did not personally invite injured plaintiff to company picnic)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.5th 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (express‑invitation exception is not limited to recreational purposes)
- Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 94 Cal.App.4th 1110 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (defines “express invitation” as a direct, personal request by the landowner)
- Channel Lumber Co. v. Porter Simon, 78 Cal.App.4th 1222 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (agency principles support imputing agent’s acts to principal in appropriate circumstances)
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Von Schmidt Dredge Co., 118 Cal. 368 (Cal. 1897) (classic statement that an agent’s authorized acts are the acts of the principal)