A Court of Appeal Reaffirms Trail Immunity
Summary: Plaintiff, Brady Helm, tripped and fell on a wire cable while walking to a recreational area next to Diaz Lake in Owens Valley, Inyo County, California. The wire cable was suspended between two wooden poles and was intended to prevent vehicles from accessing a pedestrian pathway. Helm brought suit against, among others, the County of Inyo and the City of Los Angeles alleging a dangerous condition of public property. In Helm v. City of Los Angeles, (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1219, the public entities obtained summary judgment because Helm tripped while walking along a trail, and thus, they were immune under Government Code section 831.4.
Discussion: The City owns Diaz Lake, but the County maintains the lake and surrounding campground. In 2015, the County installed numerous 18-to-24 inch discarded wooden telephone posts around Diaz Lake to create a defined barrier between the area for vehicular traffic and the pedestrian trails that lead down to the lake. Visitors to Diaz Lake could camp in designated areas or utilize the day-use area which has a beach used for fishing, hiking, swimming, picnicking, and other recreational activities. At a certain section of the road, two posts were somewhat further apart, separated by about 8 to 10 feet, but spanned by a wire cable that could be unlocked by park personnel when they needed to drive a vehicle down to the lake shore. To access the day-use area, there is a defined walking trail that leads from the parking lot to the water’s edge.
On July 3, 2020, Helm stopped at the day-use area of the lake so his dogs could go for a swim. He parked his vehicle on the unpaved road about 6 to 8 feet away from the wooden posts and cable. As he walked, he saw the posts in the ground but not the cable between them. He tripped on the cable and fell, sustaining injuries.
The lower court granted summary judgment in the entities’ favor finding they were immune based on trail immunity. On appeal, Helm argued there was a disputed material fact as to whether he tripped while walking on a trail. He further argued the posts and cable were not integral features of any trail. The Court of Appeal noted that the recreational trail immunity statute provides liability for an injury caused by a condition of the following: (a) any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas; or (b) any trail used for the above purposes. The Court noted that immunity attaches to trails providing access to recreational activities as well as to trails on which those recreational activities take place.
Whether a property is considered a “trail” under Section 831.4 turns on several considerations, including (1) the accepted definitions of the property, (2) the purpose for which the property is designed and used, and (3) the purpose of the immunity statute. In reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeal noted that Helm referred to the area in his testimony as a “pathway” and a “trail.” Moreover, he described the pathway as defined, pronounced, not overgrown with weeds, and clearly utilized by others.
Having determined that Helm was injured while accessing a trail, the Court next found the wooden poles and wire cable were integral parts of that trail. The evidence showed that the purpose of the wooden poles and the cable was to prevent vehicles using the pathway to access the lake. There was no intention for those same poles and cable to prohibit people from using the pathway to access the lake. Thus, it was integral part of the trail for pedestrian access.
A copy of the case can be found here.
This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. It is intended to provide general information about legal developments and is not legal advice. If you have questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Nicholas D. Syren.