Leyva v. Crockett & Co.
7 Cal. App. 5th 1105
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Crockett granted the County a public easement for an unpaved recreational trail that runs adjacent to the Bonita Golf Club's 13th hole. A ~6-foot chain‑link fence and a row of eucalyptus trees separate the trail from the course; no warning signs were posted on the trail side.
- In 2013 a stray golf ball from the 13th hole struck Miguel Leyva in the eye while he and his wife were walking the trail, causing severe, permanent vision loss and orbital injury.
- The Leyvas sued Crockett for negligence, unsafe condition of property, failure to warn, and related emotional distress claims. The County was initially named but later dismissed.
- Crockett moved for summary judgment asserting absolute trail immunity under Gov. Code § 831.4 and recreational use immunity under Civ. Code § 846. The trial court granted summary judgment based on § 831.4.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding a grantor of a public easement is absolutely immune under § 831.4 for injuries caused by conditions of the trail, including design and location aspects that result in exposure to hazards from adjacent property use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code § 831.4 trail immunity bars the Leyvas' tort claims | Leyva: Injury resulted from Club's failure to install safety barriers on the golf course boundary, not from a condition of the trail, so § 831.4 does not apply | Crockett: As grantor of a public easement, it is absolutely immune under § 831.4 for injuries caused by conditions of the trail, including design/location | Held: § 831.4 bars the action; trail "condition" includes location and design (affirmed summary judgment) |
| Whether Civ. Code § 846 recreational‑use immunity applies | Leyva: N/A on appeal (primary focus was § 831.4) | Crockett: alternatively immune under § 846 | Held: Court did not decide § 846 because § 831.4 dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (de novo review and summary judgment standards)
- Kahn v. East Side Union High Sch. Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990 (standard for granting summary judgment)
- Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Ctrs., Inc., 32 Cal.4th 1138 (viewing evidence in favor of the losing party on appeal)
- Amberger‑Warren v. City of Piedmont, 143 Cal.App.4th 1074 (trail immunity extends to trail design and location)
- Prokop v. City of Los Angeles, 150 Cal.App.4th 1332 (gateway and related features are part of a trail’s condition for § 831.4)
- Armenio v. County of San Mateo, 28 Cal.App.4th 413 (trail immunity is absolute)