TERESA BURGUENO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.
No. H040416
Sixth Dist.
Dec. 15, 2015
On January 13, 2016, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.
243 Cal. App. 4th 1052
Matiasic Roth & Johnson, Paul Anthony Matiasic; Smith & McGinty and Daniel U. Smith for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
McDowall Cotter and David Schultz Rosenbaum for Defendant and Respondent.
OPINION
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting P. J.—
I. INTRODUCTION
Student Adrian Burgueno was fatally injured in a bicycle accident on the “Great Meadow Bikeway,” which is on the campus of the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC). Appellants Teresa Burgueno (Adrian‘s mother) and Melissa Burgueno (Adrian‘s sister)1 have brought the instant action against respondents, the Regents of the University of California (the Regents), alleging that the Regents are liable for Adrian‘s death due to the dangerous condition of the Great Meadow Bikeway. The trial court granted the Regents’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred under the recreational trail immunity provided by
For the reasons stated below, we determine that the causes of action for dangerous condition of public property and wrongful death are barred as a matter of law because the Regents have absolute immunity from claims arising from Adrian‘s tragic accident on the Great Meadow Bikeway pursuant to the reсreational trail immunity provided by
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Our factual summary is drawn from the parties’ separate statements of fact and the evidence they submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment.
Adrian was a full-time student at UCSC in February 2011. He lived in an off-campus apartment and commuted to the university on his bicycle. His route to campus included traveling on the Great Meadow Bikeway.
Some bicyclists use the Great Meadow Bikeway for recreation. Members of the Santa Cruz County Cycling Club use the Great Meadow Bikeway to access mountain bike paths in the redwood forests above the university campus. The Great Meadow Bikeway ends at the university‘s music center, where the cycling club members then travel through the campus to reach the mountain bike paths.
Although automobiles and pedestrians are not allowed on the Great Meadow Bikeway, at times the bikeway is accessed by university service vehicles and emergency vehicles. In addition, the Great Meadow Bikeway is crossed by the “farm access road.” University service vehicles and farm visitors in private automobiles occasionally cross the Great Meadow Bikeway on the “farm access road.”
On February 10, 2011, Adrian used his bicycle to go to his evening photography class. As Adrian was leaving the campus that evening on his bicycle, he was fatally injured in a bicycle accident on the downhill portion of the Great Meadow Bikeway.
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Pleadings
The operative complaint is the second amended complaint (the complaint). Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the Great Meadow Bikeway does not provide any access to recreational or scenic areas and “serves the purpose of connecting the UCSC campus and downtown Santa Cruz.” They assert two causes of action against defendant the Regents, dangerous condition of public property and wrongful death.
In the cause of action for dangerous condition of public property, plaintiffs allege that the Regents had actual knowledge that students used the Great Meadow Bikeway for commuting to campus at night, and knew or should have known that the bikeway was unsafe due to its downhill curve, sight limitations, lack of runoff areas, lack of adequate signage, lack of appropriate roadway markings, and lack of physical barriers to prevent nighttime use of the bikeway. Plaintiffs also allege that the Regents failed to warn the public and UCSC students of the bikeway‘s dangerous condition.
In their answer to the complaint, the Regents include several affirmative defenses, including the affirmative defense of governmental immunity as set forth in various provisions of the Government Code.
B. The Motion for Summary Judgment
The Regents moved for summary judgment on the ground that they had absolute immunity for injuries resulting from the condition of the Great Meadow Bikeway under the government immunity provided by
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs argued that the motion must be denied because the Great Meadоw Bikeway is not a recreational trail within the meaning of
C. The Trial Court‘s Order
The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in its September 30, 2013 order. The court stated in its order that the Regents were entitled to immunity under
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The Standard of Review
The standard of review for an order granting a motion for summary judgment is de novo. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 860 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493] (Aguilar).) The trial court‘s stated reasons for granting summary judgment are not binding on the reviewing cоurt, “which reviews the trial court‘s ruling, not its rationale. [Citation.]” (Ramalingam v. Thompson (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 491, 498 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 11].)
In performing our independent review, we apply the same three-step process as the trial court. “Because summary judgment is defined by the material allegations in the pleadings, we first look to the pleadings to identify the elements of the causes of action for which relief is sought.” (Baptist v. Robinson (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 151, 159 [49 Cal.Rptr.3d 153] (Baptist).)
“We then examine the mоving party‘s motion, including the evidence offered in support of the motion.” (Baptist, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 159.) A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing that a cause of action lacks merit because one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (
If the defendant fails to make this initial showing, it is unnecessary to examine the plaintiff‘s opposing evidence and the motion must be denied. However, if the moving papers make a prima facie showing that justifies a judgment in the defendant‘s favor, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (
In determining whether the parties have met their respective burdens, “the court must ‘consider all of the evidence’ and ‘all’ of the ‘inferences’ reasonably drawn therefrom [citation], and must view such evidence [citations] and such inferences [citation], in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Id. at p. 850, fn. omitted.) Thus, a party ” ‘cannot avoid summary judgment by asserting facts based on mere speculation and conjecture, but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue оf fact. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]”
Keeping the standard of review in mind, we will independently determine whether the Regents’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted on the ground that the undisputed facts show that the action is barred as a matter of law under the government immunity provided by
B. Trail Immunity Under Section 831.4
“Under the Government Claims Act (
In the present case, plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the Regents are liable because Adrian‘s death was caused by the dangerous condition of the Great Meadow Bikeway. “A public entity is generally liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. (
”
“The plainly stated purpose of immunity for recreational activities on public land is to encourage public entitiеs to open their property for public recreational use, because ‘the burden and expense of putting such property in a safe condition and the expense of defending claims for injuries would probably cause many public entities to close such areas to public use.’ (Legis. committee com. 32 West‘s Ann.
Thus,
C. Analysis
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in detеrmining that their action is barred by
Although plaintiffs acknowledge that some bicyclists use the Great Meadow Bikeway to access recreational lands adjacent to camрus, they argue that such use is secondary and does not change the primary character of the bikeway. Plaintiffs also emphasize that Adrian was not engaged in a recreational activity when his accident occurred on the Great Meadow Bikeway.
The Regents disagree that summary judgment was improperly granted, since they contend that they have comрlete immunity under
Several decisions have considered the application of
Plaintiffs argue that the decisions in Armenio, Carroll, Farnham, and Prokop are distinguishable because the bikeways at issue in those cases were intended and used for recreation, unlike the Great Meadow Bikeway which was designed for its primary use as a bicycle transportation corridor. We are not persuaded that the use of a trail for bоth recreational and non-recreational purposes precludes trail immunity under
In Hartt v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1391 [132 Cal.Rptr.3d 27] (Hartt), the appellate court considered whether
Similarly, the Montenegro court stated: “The fact that a trail has a dual use—recreational and nonrecreational—does not undermine
In the present case, the evidence shows that it is undisputed that the Great Meadow Bikeway is primarily used for its intendеd purpose as a route for bicycle commuting to and from the UCSC campus. It is also undisputed that the Great Meadow Bikeway is used for recreation. In their response to the Regents’ separate statement of undisputed material facts, plaintiffs state: “UNDISPUTED that, although the admitted ‘purpose’ of the Great Meadow bike path is to facilitate students commuting viа bicycle to/from the USCS main campus and that it is primarily used for such purpose, some bicyclists may utilize the Great Meadow bike path for recreation.” Since the Great Meadow Bikeway has mixed uses that undisputedly include recreation, the Regents have trail immunity under
Moreover, plaintiffs do not dispute the evidence showing that recreational bicyclists used the Great Meadow Bikeway as part of their route to access the mountain biking paths in the redwood forests above the UCSC campus.
For these reasons, we determine that the causes of action for dangerous condition of public property and wrongful death are barred as a matter of law because the Regents have absolute immunity from claims arising from Adrian‘s tragic accident on the Great Meadow Bikeway pursuant to
Having reached this conclusion, we need not address plaintiffs’ contention on appeal that the trial court committed evidentiary error in excluding the memorandum of UCSC Police Sergeant Todd Lambaren regarding bicycle accidents on the Great Meadow Bikeway.
V. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Mihara, J., and Grover, J., concurred.
On January 13, 2016, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.