Hoffmann v. Young CA2/6, B292539A

Background:

Mikayla Hoffmann (plaintiff), a minor, was injured in a collision on a motocross track located on property owned by Donald and Christina Young; Gunner Young (their live-at-home son) invited plaintiff onto the property and lived with his parents.
Plaintiff sued the Youngs and Gunner for negligence, premises liability, motor vehicle negligence, and negligent medical care; most claims against Gunner were resolved pretrial or by directed verdict as to Christina.
Defendants moved the day before trial to amend their answer to add the Civil Code § 846 recreational-use immunity defense; the trial court permitted the amendment and ultimately entered defense verdicts (jury found Donald Young entitled to immunity on the track-design claim; jury favored defendants on the medical-care claim).
On initial appeal the Court of Appeal (Hoffmann I) reversed on the theory that a live-at-home child’s express invitation operates as the landowner’s invitation (implied agency) unless the landowner prohibited the child from inviting others.
The California Supreme Court (Hoffmann II) reversed the Court of Appeal, holding § 846(d)(3) requires the invitation to come from the landowner or an authorized agent acting on the landowner’s behalf; the record did not show Gunner was authorized, so the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment: it held the amendment to plead § 846 was within the trial court’s discretion, the evidence did not show Gunner acted as an authorized agent for his parents, any CACI wording error was not prejudicial, and the new-trial challenges failed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an express invitation by a live-at-home child activates § 846(d)(3) (express-invitation exception)	Hoffmann: Gunner’s invitation should count as his parents’ invitation because parents commonly permit children to invite guests (implied agency/implied consent)	Youngs: § 846(d)(3) requires the invitation be by the landowner or an authorized agent; mere social permission is insufficient	Held: The Supreme Court requires authorization/agency; record lacked evidence Gunner was authorized, so § 846 immunity applied and Hoffmann’s implied-agency theory fails
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing defendants to amend their answer the day before trial to assert § 846	Hoffmann: Late amendment caused prejudice by denying discovery targeted to the immunity elements	Youngs: Amendment was meritorious and denial would unfairly deprive defendants of a defense; plaintiff failed to show specific prejudice	Held: No abuse of discretion; amendment permissible and plaintiff did not show concrete prejudice
Whether the CACI instruction’s phrasing (requiring invitation “for the recreational purpose”) misstated law and prejudiced Hoffmann	Hoffmann: Instruction misstated that the invitee must be invited specifically for the recreational purpose	Youngs: Any error was harmless because parents did not invite Hoffmann for any purpose and Supreme Court ruling disposes of agency issue	Held: Instruction misstated statutory text but any error was not prejudicial on these facts
Whether the trial court erred in denying Hoffmann’s motion for a new trial on negligence and premises-liability claims	Hoffmann: Evidentiary rulings and § 846 application warranted a new trial	Youngs: Plaintiff forfeited or failed to develop coherent argument showing abuse of discretion; § 846 applies and plaintiff’s authorities do not compel a different result	Held: Denial of new trial affirmed; plaintiff failed to show the trial court abused its broad discretion

Key Cases Cited

Hoffmann v. Young, 13 Cal.5th 1257 (2022) (Supreme Court: § 846(d)(3) requires invitation by landowner or an authorized agent)
Hoffmann v. Young, 56 Cal.App.5th 1021 (2020) (Court of Appeal: initially held a live-at-home child’s invitation could operate as the landowner’s invitation absent a parental prohibition)
Ornelas v. Randolph, 4 Cal.4th 1095 (1993) (§ 846 immunity applies to fenced and open lands; attempts to restrict access do not forfeit immunity)
Hubbard v. Brown, 50 Cal.3d 189 (1990) (describing scope of § 846 recreational immunity)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.5th 563 (2017) (discussing elements of § 846 and related exceptions)
Calhoon v. Lewis, 81 Cal.App.4th 108 (2000) (clarifying that an express invitation under § 846(d)(3) need not be limited to an invitation for a particular recreational purpose)