Margie Lockner v. Pierce County
198 Wash. App. 907
Wash. Ct. App.2017Background
- Margie Lockner and her niece were bicycling on the Foothills Trail when Lockner clipped her niece’s bike while attempting to pass a county employee-operated lawn mower and was injured.
- Pierce County described the Foothills Trail as a 12-foot paved non-motorized trail used for bicycling, walking, commuting, and equestrian use; County plans described trail purposes as both recreation and transportation.
- The County moved for summary judgment asserting RCW 4.24.210 (recreational immunity) barred Lockner’s negligence claim; the County’s superintendent declared the trail was open for recreation 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. and was not a transportation corridor.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the County; Lockner appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether (1) genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the trail was open to the public solely for recreational purposes and (2) the recreational immunity statute applies to negligence claims (not just premises liability).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recreational immunity applies when land is used for transportation as well as recreation | Lockner: evidence shows the trail is used for transportation/commuting, so immunity should not apply | County: trail is open for recreation and thus immune under RCW 4.24.210 | Reversed summary judgment — material facts exist whether trail was opened solely for recreation; immunity uncertain under Camicia standard |
| Whether the landowner must have authority to open/close the land to assert immunity | Lockner: County may lack exclusive authority to close sections of the trail (ownership/authority ambiguous) | County: asserts control and recreational opening | Held for Lockner on facts — genuine issue exists who had authority to close the trail; immunity depends on that authority |
| Whether recreational immunity requires the land be opened solely for recreational purposes (interpretation of Camicia) | Lockner: Camicia limits immunity where land is opened for mixed public purposes (transportation + recreation) | County: argues trail is recreationally opened and immunized | Court: Camicia interpreted to limit immunity to land held open solely for recreation; mixed-use raises material fact issues precluding summary judgment |
| Whether RCW 4.24.210 applies to negligence claims (vs. premises liability only) | Lockner: her claim is negligence (not premises liability), so immunity shouldn’t apply | County: immunity covers unintentional injuries regardless of label of claim | Court: statute’s plain language covers unintentional injuries and applies to negligence actions; plaintiff’s label doesn’t avoid immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., 179 Wn.2d 684 (Wash. 2014) (recreational immunity applies only when land is held open to public solely for recreation; mixed-use raises fact issues)
- Citizens All. for Prop. Rights Land Legal Fund v. San Juan County, 184 Wn.2d 428 (Wash. 2015) (plain meaning of statute controls interpretation)
- Curtis v. Lein, 169 Wn.2d 884 (Wash. 2011) (negligence and premises-liability labels can overlap; substance controls applicability)