Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court of San Mateo County
10 Cal. App. 5th 563
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Twelve-year-old Zachary Rowe was catastrophically injured when a 75-foot tree fell on his tent while camping at San Mateo County Memorial Park; his family paid a $50 campsite fee to the County.
- Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) holds a tariff-based license/easement to enter the park to inspect and maintain power lines and vegetation; PG&E received no portion of the campsite fee.
- Zachary sued PG&E for negligence, alleging PG&E negligently maintained nearby trees; PG&E moved for summary judgment asserting Civil Code § 846 (recreational use immunity).
- The trial court denied summary judgment; PG&E sought interlocutory review. The Court of Appeal addressed whether § 846’s “consideration” exception applies when the landowner (not the defendant licensee) receives the fee.
- The court held § 846’s consideration exception applies whenever permission to enter for recreation was granted for a consideration, regardless of whether the defendant actually received the payment, and therefore PG&E’s immunity was abrogated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 846’s consideration exception apply when permission to enter was granted for a consideration paid to the landowner, but not to a nonpossessory interest holder (licensee/easement holder)? | Rowe: The exception applies whenever permission to enter was granted for consideration; immunity is abrogated regardless of who received the fee. | PG&E: Exception should apply only when the defendant actually receives (or benefits from) the consideration; otherwise nonpossessory holders retain immunity. | Held: Exception applies when permission was granted for consideration regardless of recipient; PG&E’s § 846 immunity is abrogated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. United States, 50 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010) (statutory interpretation principles; § 846 not limitless)
- Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 699 (Cal. 1983) (§ 846’s purpose to encourage free public recreational access)
- Hubbard v. Brown, 50 Cal.3d 189 (Cal. 1990) (§ 846 applies to nonpossessory interests; legislative purpose)
- Ornelas v. Randolph, 4 Cal.4th 1095 (Cal. 1993) (breadth of § 846 and interpretation guidance)
- Ducey v. United States, 713 F.2d 504 (9th Cir. 1983) (construing similar consideration exception to focus on party with power to grant permission)
- Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 94 Cal.App.4th 1110 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (invitation exception interpreted to affect fee owner differently than easement holder)
- Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 45 Cal.4th 1151 (Cal. 2009) (§ 846’s effect on indemnity claims; court noted limits of immunity)