Helm v. City of L.A.

321 Cal.Rptr.3d 57

Brady HELM, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

D083075

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1.

Filed April 19, 2024

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Inyo County, Susanne Rizo, Judge. Affirmed. (Super. Ct. No. IC-SICVCV202066094)

William Iagmin and Jon R. Williams, San Diego; Lyfe Law, Sam Tabibian, Los Angeles, and Shabnam Sarani, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Porter Scott, Carl L. Fessenden, Sacramento, Thomas L. Riordan, and Matthew W. Gross, Sacramento, for Defendants and Respondents.

KELETY, J.

Brady Helm tripped and fell on a wire cable while walking to a recreational area at Diaz Lake. That 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 (County) and the City of Los Angeles (City; County and City, together Respondents), alleging causes of action for dangerous condition on public property, premises liability, and negligence. Respondents prevailed on summary judgment, arguing that Helm tripped while walking along a trail, and thus, they were immune under Government Code¹ section 831.4 (trail immunity).

Helm appeals the ensuing final judgment following Respondents’ successful motion for summary judgment. To this end, Helm contends: (1) trail immunity does not apply here; and (2) disputed questions of material facts exist regarding the alleged dangerous condition of the subject public property. We disagree with Helm’s first contention and conclude the trial court did not err in granting Respondents’ motion for summary judgment because trail immunity barred Helm’s claims. As such, we affirm the judgment.²

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The City owns Diaz Lake, but the County maintains the lake as well as a surrounding campground. Around 2015, the County installed numerous 18 to 24 inch discarded wooden telephone posts around Diaz Lake to create a defined barrier between the area of vehicular traffic and the trails down to the lake. People may camp in designated areas or utilize the day-use area. The day-use area has a beach and is used for fishing, hiking, swimming, picnicking, and other recreational activities. The wooden posts, most of which are placed about two feet from each other, serve the purpose of preventing unauthorized vehicle traffic venturing into nondesignated areas, including near the shore of the lake. However, the wooden posts were not installed to prevent foot traffic from accessing the lake (people can easily walk around them). At a certain section of the road, two posts were somewhat further apart, separated by about eight to 10 feet, but spanned by a wire cable that can be unlocked by park personnel when they need to drive a vehicle down to the lake shore for maintenance or repair activities.

To access the day-use area, there is a defined walking trail that leads from the parking area to the water’s edge. People can use that trail to access the available recreational activities at Diaz Lake and hike along the trail. No vehicles or watercraft are allowed down the trail to the lake in the day-use area. People using the day-use area are only allowed to access the lake from the parking area by foot.

On July 3, 2020, at about 5:30 p.m., Helm and his girlfriend followed the road around Diaz Lake and drove around the east and west sides before stopping at the east side of the lake. Helm stopped near the day-use area of the lake, so that he could let his dogs swim. He parked his vehicle on the unpaved road about six to eight feet away from the wooden posts and cable.

According to Helm, there existed "three pathways that led down towards the little beach area and the water. The first one had major erosion and a drop-off that [he] would not feel comfortable going down; the second one was overgrown and didn’t look like it had that much usage, and also had a wood area that didn’t look too friendly; and the third one looked to be the best option to walk down the pathway to the water, so that’s where [they] stopped." This third option, which Helm chose, had two wooden posts with a wire cable suspended between them. They were located toward the top of the pathway. Helm believed this path was the best option to take to the lake because "[it] had a more pronounced kind of a trail outline that you could see where it had been utilized where, like I said, the other two did not look utilized as much and had some access issues" and the pathway "was more clearly defined, not overgrown with weeds and didn’t have an erosion ditch in it like the other ones." Helm exited the truck, put the leash on one of his dogs, and placed the dog on the ground. His girlfriend grabbed the other dog and followed behind. The leash Helm used was about four to six feet long.

Helm’s destination was the day-use beach at the bottom of the trail. A dirt path runs between the wooden posts down to the beach and lake. The ground is made of compressed dirt and has a gentle slope that grades down toward the lake. The day-use area has a sandy beach section and multiple picnic tables with seating areas near the water. The wooden posts, suspended cable, and trail are shown in the picture below.

321 Cal.Rptr.3d 62.bmp

As Helm walked toward the wooden posts and cable, his dog, a corgi, walked about six inches in front of him and about one and a half to two feet from his side. Helm’s left hand held the leash and his right hand was free. Helm said he saw the two wooden posts in the ground but did not see the cable between the posts. However, he did notice "the trail in between them" and he further described this trail as "the walk path down to the beach."

Helm was looking at the lake and not at the ground when he approached the wooden posts and cable. Once Helm reached the wooden posts and cable, he felt the cable limit his ability to lift up his left foot. Helm’s right foot was still behind the cable and had not stepped over it. Helm then "kind of tried to hop off [his] right foot to get over the cable or just to catch [himself]." Unfortunately, he fell on his left hand and side. At that time, the cable was high enough that Helm’s corgi had already walked underneath the cable before the fall. After he fell, Helm determined that the cause of his accident was "[a] gray thin cable stretched across the walk path two inches off the ground."

Subsequently, Helm filed a claim of public liability against the City, County, and the State of California. The County and the State denied the claim.³ Helm then filed suit, alleging causes of action of dangerous conditions of public property, premises liability, and negligence. After answering the complaint, Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing trail immunity applied, the wooden poles connected by the wire cable did not constitute a dangerous condition, and Respondents had no notice of any dangerous condition.

Helm opposed the motion for summary judgment, contending trail immunity did not apply and there existed a dangerous condition on public property.

After considering the motion, opposition, and supporting documents as well as entertaining oral argument, the trial court granted Respondents’ motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the court found that Respondents were immune from liability under section 831.4. Specifically, the court determined that the area where Helm fell was a trail for purposes of section 831.4 and the wooden poles and wire cable were incorporated into the design of the trail.

The court subsequently entered a judgment of dismissal of Helm’s complaint against Respondents. Helm timely filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

[1–4] "On appeal after a motion for summary judgment has been granted, we review the record de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposition papers except that to which objections have been made and sustained." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) A motion for summary judgment "should be granted if no triable issue exists as to any material fact and the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1002–1003, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 103, 75 P.3d 30, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) "In performing our de novo review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the losing parties." (Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2003) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142, 12 Cal. Rptr.3d 615, 88 P.3d 517.) "[W]e liberally construe plaintiffs’ evidentiary submissions and strictly scrutinize defendant’s own evidence, in order to resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiffs’ favor." (Ibid.)

Helm’s complaint alleges three causes of action, all of which are contingent on Helm tripping on the cable between the two wooden posts. The trial court found that Respondents were immune from liability under section 831.4 based on Helm tripping on the cable. Helm contends that Respondents are not entitled to trail immunity pursuant to section 831.4 under the facts of this case. Specifically, he states there is a disputed material fact whether he flipped while walking on a trail. Additionally, he argues the wooden poles and wire cable were not an integral feature of any trail.

[5, 6] " ‘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.’ " (Loeb v. County of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 421, 431, 255 Cal. Rptr.3d 860 (Loeb).) However, the recreational trail immunity statute, section 831.4, provides that a public entity "is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of’ the following: "(a) Any unpaved road which provides access to...