Trail immunity—is the condition an integral part of the trail?

Looking forward to an evening of recreation at Diaz Lake, a couple parks their car and begins to walk down the trail towards the water's edge. Just as they step foot onto the trail, one of them tumbles over a hard-to-see wire tied to two wooden posts. The wire and posts are used as a boundary to delineate the beginning of the trail and to keep cars out. The man is injured and sues the City of Los Angeles for negligence. But what might constitute a dangerous condition under normal circumstances is not considered one here. That's because Government Code section 831.4 immunizes public entities for injuries suffered on any trail connected to outdoor recreation areas, as the Court of Appeal recently explained in Helm v. City of Los Angeles.

Government Code 831.4

Trail immunity is spelled out in Government Code section 831.4. It reads:

A public entity, public employee, or a grantor of a public easement to a public entity for any of the following purposes, 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.

The paramount purpose for trail immunity is to keep outdoor recreational areas open to the public by preventing burdens and costs on the entities that maintain them. Public policy favors absolute immunity for government entities as an incentive to open their properties for public recreational use. Trail immunity applies to both paved and unpaved trails, as well as to many bicycle paths. For example, the Court found in Farnham v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097 that trail immunity applied when a bicyclist was injured on the paved bike path in Balboa Park.

Is everything a trail?

In Helm, the plaintiff was injured when he tripped over the wire referenced above. The opinion has a picture of the wire, which is hard to see even in a photograph. The plaintiff in Helm argued that the wire was not an integral part of the trail, but was rather used to demarcate the trail's boundaries. Plaintiff maintained that defining the wire as part of the trail would improperly broaden the definition of what is considered a trail, effectively immunizing the government from every injury that occurs anywhere near an actual trail.

For example, in Toeppe v. City of San Diego (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 921, the plaintiff was walking on a trail in an outdoor recreation area when a Eucalyptus tree branch fell on her. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City of San Diego, agreeing that since the injury occurred on a trail, trail immunity applied. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Plaintiff was injured by a negligently maintained tree independent of the trail. Her allegations were not based on the maintenance of the trail, but rather on the lack of maintenance of the trees. The Court concluded that the case was about trees, not about trails, and thus reversed the trial court's ruling.

Similarly, in Treweek v. City of Napa (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 221, the plaintiff was injured when a boat ramp caved in. The trial court granted summary judgment, holding that trail immunity applied since the ramp was connected to a recreational walking path. While the Court of Appeal agreed that the word "trail" has a broad definition, the word "ramp" does not. A ramp has a different purpose than a path or trail. It connects two different surface levels on an inclined plane. Extending trail immunity to the ramp at issue would open the floodgates and sweep everything into the definition of a trail, including elevators, sidewalks, and parking lots. The Court could not authorize this result.

Helm v. City of Los Angeles

The Court rejected plaintiff's arguments in Helm. The evidence showed that he tripped on the actual trail and not at some point extraneous to it. The Court emphasized that the very purpose for the wire and posts--keeping vehicle traffic out--was an integral aspect of the trail because they were erected to enhance pedestrian safety. The City was therefore immune from liability under the trail immunity statute.

Conclusion

Trail immunity is a confusing area of law. Plaintiffs who are injured at outdoor recreation sites, or on trails leading to and from these areas, face a high burden in overcoming the immunities found in Government Code section 831.4. A plaintiff will need to show that the injury occurred independent of the trail, or by something not integral to the makeup of the trail. While not everything is considered a trail, courts do apply a broad definition to the term. Helm v. City of Los Angeles is another case practitioners should keep in mind when faced with a scenario that implicates California's trail immunity statute.