Toeppe v. City of San Diego
D069662
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lorin Toeppe was struck and seriously injured by a falling eucalyptus tree branch while at Mission Bay Park, a city-owned recreational park with a paved trail.
- Toeppe sued the City of San Diego for a dangerous condition of public property, alleging negligent maintenance of the eucalyptus tree caused the branch to fall.
- The City moved for summary judgment asserting trail immunity under Gov. Code § 831.4 because Toeppe was on (or adjacent to) the park trail when injured.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding the tree/its location was related to the trail and therefore covered by trail immunity; the court also denied Toeppe’s new-trial motion.
- On appeal the court reviewed the record de novo, framed the case as one about a negligently maintained tree (not the trail), and found a disputed material fact about whether Toeppe was on the paved trail when struck.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding trail immunity did not apply to Toeppe’s tree-based claim (and that, even if it did, a triable issue existed about her location when struck).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code § 831.4 "trail immunity" bars Toeppe's dangerous-condition claim based on a negligently maintained eucalyptus tree | Trail immunity does not apply because the dangerous condition is the tree's negligent maintenance, not the trail | Trail immunity applies because Toeppe was on (or used) the trail when struck and the tree's location is tied to exposure | Reversed: trail immunity does not apply where the dangerous condition (a maintained tree) is independent of the trail and visitors need not use the trail to be exposed |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given disputed facts about where Toeppe was standing when struck | Toeppe presented declarations and expert opinion indicating she was on the grass (off the paved trail) when hit, creating a triable issue | City submitted eyewitness statements, a paramedic report, and a depiction from the boyfriend locating her on the trail | Reversed: there was a disputed material fact about Toeppe's location, so summary judgment was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont, 143 Cal.App.4th 1074 (distinguishing trail-based design/location dangers from independent non-trail conditions)
- Leyva v. Crockett & Co., Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th 1105 (applies trail immunity where injury results from the trail’s proximity to another use and barrier-installation claims would alter trail safety burdens)
- Cole v. Town of Los Gatos, 205 Cal.App.4th 749 (elements of dangerous condition of public property)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (standard for de novo appellate review after summary judgment)
- Kahn v. East Side Union High Sch. Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990 (summary judgment standard)