In Arvizu v. City of Pasadena, ordered published March 23, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 3 affirmed summary judgment in the City's favor in a lawsuit alleging a dangerous condition of public property. The plaintiff entered a portion of the Arroyo Seco park in the early morning, while the park was closed, headed for a trail running along the Arroyo Seco stream near the Colorado Street Bridge. He attempted to walk down a natural slope toward the trail. He lost his footing on the slope, tumbled down it, across the trail, and across the edge of a concrete retaining wall level with the trail's edge, falling onto the dirt and rocks below. He alleged that the absence of guard rails or warnings along the edge of the retaining wall was a dangerous condition of public property. The trial court granted summary judgment, both on Government Code section 831.4's trail immunity and on the absence of a dangerous condition.
The appellate court affirmed solely on the section 831.4 immunity. Because the trail along the retaining wall lead to recreational activities, subdivision (b) of the statute applied. The plaintiff's argument that the immunity did not apply because he was not "using" the trail failed. He was with a group headed towards the trail; he was using the slope to get to the trail; and he briefly was on the trail before heading over the retaining wall. His argument that the dangerous condition was the lack of handrail or warning signs on the retaining wall, rather than a condition of the trail, also failed. Due to the narrow space along the retaining wall, any guardrail or warning sign would have to be on the trail. Further, the trail immunity applies to property abutting the trail that allegedly makes the trail dangerous.
Leave a Reply