Reed v. City of L. A.

45 Cal.App.5th 979

259 Cal.Rptr.3d 297

Sells Clyde REED III, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.

B294531

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Filed February 28, 2020

Law Office of Donald R. Hammond, Donald R. Hammond, Los Angeles; Jeff Lewis Law, Jeffrey Lewis, Rolling Hills Estates, and Sean C. Rotstan for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Assistant City Attorney, and Michael M. Walsh, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

CHANEY, J.

Sells Reed III sued the City of Los Angeles for injuries he sustained when he rode his bicycle into a rope attached to a badminton net stretched across a paved path in MacArthur Park.¹ The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on multiple independent grounds: Reed’s suit was barred by the doctrine of trail immunity ( Gov. Code, § 831.4 ), no negligent or wrongful act or omission of a City employee caused the dangerous condition that injured Reed, and the City had no actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.² We agree with the trial court that Reed’s claims are barred by the doctrine of trail immunity. Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Reed was riding his bicycle on a paved path adjacent to a sports field in MacArthur Park at around 5:30 a.m. on September 12, 2015, when he rode into a rope attached to a badminton net and stretched across the path. Reed fell backward off his bicycle and suffered various injuries as a result of the contact with the rope and the fall. Reed alleged that individuals unrelated to the City had erected the badminton net, but that the individuals who did had done so frequently enough that the City either knew or should have known the net would be there the morning of Reed’s incident.

Reed filed a complaint against the City alleging two causes of action: (1) dangerous condition of public property (§ 835), and (2) public employee negligence. The City filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was immune from liability based on the trail immunity doctrine ( § 831.4 ), and that even if it was not immune, it had no actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and the negligence claim is an improper cause of action. The trial court agreed with the City as to each of the three grounds in its motion, granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment for the City.

Reed filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

"A public entity [or] public employee ... is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of: [¶] (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 and which is not a (1) city street or highway or (2) county, state or federal highway or (3) public street or highway of a joint highway district, boulevard district, bridge and highway district or similar district formed for the improvement or building of public streets or highways. [¶] (b) Any trail used for the above purposes." ( § 831.4, subds. (a) & (b).) "The trail immunity provided in subdivision (b) of the statute extends to trails that are used for the activities listed in subdivision (a), and to trails that are used solely for access to such activities. [Citation.] The immunity applies whether or not the trail is paved."³ ( Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1078, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 631 ( Amberger-Warren ).)

The trial court concluded Reed’s claims were barred by the trail immunity doctrine and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on that ground.⁴ " ‘We review the trial court’s ruling on a summary judgment motion de novo, liberally construe the evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of the opponent. [Citation.] We must affirm a summary judgment if it is correct on any of the grounds asserted in the trial court, regardless of the trial court’s stated reasons.’ " ( Arvizu v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 760, 763, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 120.)

Reed argues that courts have "found immunity to apply where an injury arises from the design or location of the trail but" not "where the injury was caused by a dangerous condition adjacent to the trail that is unrelated to the trail’s purpose." He relies on Amberger-Warren , supra , 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 631, as an example of immunity where injury arose from design or location of the trail and Garcia v. American Golf Corp. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 532, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 25 ( Garcia ), and Toeppe v. City of San Diego (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 921, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 608 ( Toeppe ), as representative of cases where trail immunity did not exist because the injury resulted from conditions merely coincidentally adjacent to a trail. As we explain, while we agree with Reed’s statement of the law, we disagree with his assessment of the category into which his own case falls.

In Amberger-Warren , an unleashed dog bumped into the plaintiff and she slipped on some debris on the trail. ( Amberger-Warren , supra , 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1078, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 631.) The plaintiff fell backward and landed "part-way off" the trail. ( Ibid. ) To avoid falling down an adjacent hill, she grabbed an exposed cement edge, which injured her hand. ( Ibid. ) The plaintiff argued that her injuries did not result from a condition of the trail, but rather "from other dangerous conditions, allegedly unrelated to the trail, that defendant created, including: allowing dogs to run unleashed in the park; permitting debris to accumulate on the trail; failing to install a guardrail where the accident occurred; and locating the trail in a dangerous area, i.e., next to a slope onto which people could fall." ( Id. at p. 1083, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 631.)

Citing State of California v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 325, 326-327, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, the Amberger-Warren court reiterated that " ‘a public entity is not liable for a dangerous condition of public property based on third party conduct alone[.]’ " ( Amberger-Warren , supra , 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1084, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 631.) The defendant in Amberger-Warren could not, therefore, be liable for "harm caused by third party actors such as [an] unleashed dog unless some unimmunized conduct on [defendant’s] part contributed to that harm." ( Ibid. ) The court also explained that "[i]t is well-established that the immunity covers negligent maintenance of a trail, such as allowing accumulation of debris as alleged ...." ( Ibid. )

In Garcia , the minor plaintiff was hit by a golf ball as he was being pushed in a stroller along the Rose Bowl Loop adjacent to the Brookside Golf Course. ( Garcia , supra , 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 537, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 25.) Garcia explained that each of the conditions causing the injury in Amberger-Warren were related entirely to the existence of the trail—if the trail did not exist, the dangerous condition would not have existed—and therefore those conditions were immunized.⁵ Conversely, "the danger posed by the Brookside Golf Course would exist even if the walkway did not; there would still be a danger of errant golf balls hitting motorists and recreational users of the Loop." ( Garcia , at p. 546, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 25.)

In Toeppe , plaintiff was walking on a pathway through a public park when a branch fell off a tree and struck her. ( Toeppe , supra , 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 924, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 608.) The Toeppe court employed a "relatedness" analysis similar to that in Garcia . The court identified the dangerous condition as a negligently maintained eucalyptus tree. "[U]nlike the dangerous condition of a hill in Amberger-Warren that could not be separated from the subject path, here, the dangerous condition (a negligently maintained eucalyptus tree) is independent of the trail through Mission Bay Park. It is possible for a visitor to the park to be injured by a falling tree whether she used the trail or simply walked across the grass and was struck by a falling branch." ( Toeppe , at p. 928, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 608.) Further highlighting the distinction, the Toeppe court explained that two of the dangerous conditions in Amberger-Warren were "lack of handrails on the path and the hill on which the path crossed." ( Toeppe , at p. 928, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 608.) If the defendant in that case were not immune, the conditions would require redesigning the path. ( Id. at p. 929, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 608.) In contrast, "[h]ere, the dangerous condition does not require the City to improve the trail or alter its design whatsoever. Toeppe has not alleged that a safety barrier needs to be added to the trail or that the trail must follow a different path. Indeed, Toeppe’s claim of a dangerous condition does not involve the trail whatsoever." ( Ibid. )

In Garcia , there was no immunity because golf balls escaping the golf course would have been dangerous to any passerby, not just those using the trail. In Toeppe , there was no immunity because the negligently maintained eucalyptus tree was dangerous to anyone in its vicinity, not just those using the path.

We conclude this case is most analogous to Leyva v. Crockett & Co., Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1105, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 879 —another golf ball case. In Leyva , a golf ball struck the plaintiff in his eye as he walked along a trail adjacent to a golf course. ( Id. at p. 1107, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 879.) In Leyva , golf balls escaping the golf course posed a danger only to the trail’s users. "The condition of the golf course [in Leyva ] could not...