No Liability for an Off-Road Motorcycle Crash on Public Property

Summary:  A plaintiff sustained serious injuries after running into a suspended cable fence while riding his off-road motorcycle on an unpaved area within property owned by defendant Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, a public entity. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the cable fence created a dangerous condition of public property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Commission. In Altizer v. Coachella Valley Conservation Com.,  (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 749, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, finding that the Commission was entitled to hazardous recreational activity immunity under Government Code section 831.7.

Discussion:  On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff Tanner Altizer was riding his motorcycle within property owned by the Commission. The subject property was a 160-acre piece of unoccupied desert land in Desert Hot Springs consisting of several parcels between residential areas. Altizer was riding to his sister’s home, when he decided to use an unpaved trail on the Commission’s property. As Altizer proceeded along the trail, he did not see a cable fence until he was too close to stop. He crashed into the fence and sustained serious injuries.

Section 831.7 precludes imposing liability on a public entity for injuries “ ‘arising out of” hazardous recreational activities conducted on public property.” The parties disputed whether Altizer was engaging in a hazardous recreational activity at the time of the accident. Altizer argued that he was traveling across the Commission’s property to his sister’s house to avoid traffic, not for a recreational purpose. The Commission cited Section 831.7(b), which sets forth a non-exclusive list of hazardous recreational activities including “off road motorcycling… of any kind.”

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Commission, holding that the broad language of Section 831.7(b) covered off-road motorcycling of any kind, regardless of purpose. This included riding the off-road motorcycle on an unpaved, dirt road on the Commission’s property.

Altizer also argued that the Commission was not entitled to immunity under Section 831.7 because of the failure to warn exception under Section 831.7(c)(1). The Court again sided with the Commission and held that the failure to warn exception did not apply because the cable fence was open and obvious and objectively did not pose a substantial risk of danger to any member of the general public using due care. Given the desert area, and the fact that properties are fenced off, the court held that Altizer, at a minimum, should have been alert to such conditions. Given this broad interpretation of Section 831.7, summary judgment was affirmed.

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 Matthew T. Matejcek.