Pollak, Vida & Barer

In Hu v. City of San Jose, published September 8, 2025, the Sixth Appellate District reversed summary judgment for the defendant city. The plaintiff was riding his bicycle on a paved rural road near recreational areas. There was a bike lane separated from the vehicle lane by a white stripe. The bike lane and stripe became obscured along the route by debris, dirt, and loose gravel. Before the disappearance, a second white stripe branched off from the first, marking a buffer zone. The buffer zone is also cluttered with debris, dirt, and loose gravel. The second line disappears into uneven pavement and potholes. The plaintiff exited the bike lane into the buffer zone before the point where the debris encroached on the bike lane. While turning his bike around the potholes to reach the vehicle lane, the plaintiff fell off his bike. The trial court granted summary judgment on grounds including that the bike lane is covered by absolute trail immunity under Government Code section 831.4

In the published portion of the decision, the appellate court ruled that the bike lane was not subject to section 831.4 immunity. A city street is not a trail under section 831.4. The bike lane here was part of the street. It can be used for recreation, and to access recreational areas, which are criteria for finding a property is a “trail” for purposes of section 831.4. But the statute expressly states that the immunity applicable to unpaved roads does not extend to city streets. It would be incongruous to read the statute to shield the city from liability for dangerous conditions on a paved city road. The court rejected the city’s argument that under the Vehicle Code and the Streets and Highway Code a bike lane is not part of the street, because a street is open to use by the public and the bike lane is restricted to the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles. The scope of what constitutes a “street” varies according to context, even under the Vehicle Code. Nothing in section 831.4 itself permits the city to limit its liability for dangerous conditions in the street by painting a lane marker and deeming one lane a trail. The court distinguished cases holding that noncontiguous or physically separated bike paths are trails, even if paved and in urban settings. Paths, unlike city streets or the bike lanes within them, fit the accepted definition of trails.