Wang v. Nibbelink
4 Cal. App. 5th 1
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Yan Wang and Tyler Raihala were injured off defendants’ meadow property when a horse, part of an organized Wagon Train recreational event, broke loose from the meadow and trampled Wang in the parking lot of adjacent Strawberry Lodge.
- The meadow owners (defendants) had permitted the Wagon Train organizer (HFA) to use the meadow for overnight camping and horse containment; they were not event sponsors or supervisors.
- Plaintiffs sued the meadow owners for negligence (premises liability and failure to warn/contain); they alleged the owners failed to provide fencing, containment, rules, staff, or warnings.
- Meadow owners moved for summary judgment solely on Civil Code § 846 (recreational use immunity). Their answer initially did not plead § 846 as an affirmative defense; the trial court allowed amendment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the meadow owners, holding § 846 shields owners from liability for injuries caused by recreational users even to off-premises, nonparticipant victims, and that plaintiffs had no independent theory of liability outside the statute. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendants forfeit § 846 by not pleading it as an affirmative defense? | Forfeiture because § 846 was not pled in the answer or identified in interrogatory responses. | No forfeiture: § 846 negates an element of the claim (duty) and plaintiffs had notice and opportunity to respond; trial court permitted amendment. | No forfeiture; § 846 was properly considered. |
| Does § 846 bar liability for injuries off the premises to nonparticipants caused by recreational users? | § 846 only abrogates duty to recreational users on the premises and should not shield landowners from off-premises injuries to nonparticipants. | § 846(3)(c) broadly immunizes owners from "any injury to person" caused by acts of permitted recreational users, without an on-premises limitation. | § 846(3)(c) applies to off-premises injuries to nonparticipants caused by recreational users. |
| Can plaintiffs proceed on an independent negligence theory against landowners (e.g., failure to fence/maintain) despite § 846? | Owners’ own property-based negligence (failure to fence/repair/warn) is separable from users’ acts and § 846 should not bar it. | § 846 and its fourth-paragraph exceptions indicate the Legislature intended to immunize owners from ordinary (non-willful) negligence tied to recreational use; only willful/malicious failures are excepted. | Plaintiffs alleged no willful/malicious conduct; alleged failures are property-based claims conceptually tied to recreational permission and thus barred by § 846. |
| Did defendants meet their summary judgment prima facie burden and are there triable issues (recreational purpose, causation, consideration, express invitation, willful/malicious)? | Multiple factual disputes: (1) Wagon Train not recreational or certain acts were non-recreational (parking horses); (2) causation attributable to owners’ fencing; (3) defendants received consideration (insurance endorsement); (4) invitation rather than mere permission; (5) willful/malicious failure to guard. | Facts show Wagon Train use is recreational; participant’s act caused injury; additional-insured status is not consideration that defeats § 846; no express personal invitation; complaint alleged negligence only, not willful/malice. | Defendants’ papers were adequate; no triable issues on recreational purpose, causation, consideration, express invitation, or willfulness/malice; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. United States, 50 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010) (interprets § 846; distinguishes premises-based duties from activity-based negligence and explains scope of § 846 immunities)
- Ornelas v. Randolph, 4 Cal.4th 1095 (Cal. 1993) (construed § 846 broadly and applied immunity to participants and spectators)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (Cal. 1968) (section 1714 premises-liability baseline; statutory exceptions can displace general duty)
- Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery, 19 Cal.4th 714 (Cal. 1998) (statutory immunity construed to include conduct-based scope and to limit exceptions to willful/wanton/criminal or willful/malicious failures to guard or warn)
- Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 94 Cal.App.4th 1110 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (where undisputed facts exist, courts may decide recreational-use questions as a matter of law on summary judgment)