Sonoma
County Date: May 22, 1986 To: Steve Butler, County Counsel From: Shiela Lee, Planning Department SUBJECT: Proposed Trail System The preliminary draft Open Space Element of the General Plan includes mapped designations for a trail system. Public liability for property owners is a major concern which has been raised at public workshops. The text includes the statement: "The trail plan is not intended to be a trail users' guide but is primarily a document for planning and securing a countywide trail system." The open space maps are on a parcel-specific base, but the legend reads "Planned Future Trail (depicts general location). Note: For planning purposes only. This does not confer the right to trespass on private property or on controlled government lands." The North Sonoma Valley Specific Plan contains a trail system on a parcel specific base map which was used to exact a trails easement in the Graywood Ranch Subdivision and provides the only county precedent. However, Marin County and Monterey County have trails systems in their general plan. Section 846 of the California Civil Code provides some legal protection for private property owners. Relevant legal questions are:
The Open Space Element is scheduled for review by the General Plan Update Advisory Committee on June 4. Please advise me of any legal problems or needed text or mapping changes by May 30. DN:MSLSB.1 OFFICE OF
THE
Sheila Lee
Dear Sheila: The purpose of this letter is to confirm the information that I gave you orally on May 30, 1986. With respect to the questions posed in your letter, please be advised as follows: 1. The proposed mapping system does not create a liability problem for private property owners or the County if trespassing occurs prior to the acquisition or dedication of the trails system. For purposes of this response, "liability problem" means only those liabilities which may arise as a result of the trespasser being injured or killed on the property. Civil Code section 846 provides that an owner or occupant of real property owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions on such property to persons entering for a recreational purpose. Recreational purpose is defined as activities including fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, spelunking, parachuting, animal and vehicular riding, snowmobiling, rock collecting, sightseeing, picnicing, nature study, nature contacting, recreational gardening, gleaning, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical or archeological, scenic, natural or scientific sights. An illustrative case interpreting Civil Code section 846 is English v. Marin Municipal Water District (1977) 66 Cal. App.3d 725. In the English Case a motorcyclist sued the Marin Water District and the Pacific Cascade Land Company for injuries sustained while the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle. He drove off a cliff. The,court granted summary judgment for the landowner defendants while holding as follows:
While there is an immunity for damages for personal injuries suffered by recreational trespassers, other liabilities may arise as a result of trespassing such as fire damage, crop damage or animal loss. Moreover, if a landowner tries to forceably remove a trespasser from his property, it is not inconceivable that liabilities may arise. 2. Although there is nothing to guarantee that a property owner would not be joined as a defendant in an action, it is doubtful that the property owner would be subject to liability for injuries sustained by a person utilizing a hiking easement across his property. Government Code section 831.4 provides that a public entity, public employee, or the grantor of a public easement is not liable for injuries caused by the condition of unpaved trails which provide access to fishing, hunting, camping, riding, water sports or recreational or scenic areas. This immunity includes animal and all types of vehicle riding. A copy of section 831.4 is enclosed for your review. Liabilities may arise in the event that a fee is charged for use of the hiking trails or in the event that the trails are improved with pavement.' (See: Civil Code §846; Government Code §831.4.) 3. Section 846 has been upheld by the courts. If an injury is sustained as a result of the activities contemplated by section 846, I believe that the courts will continue to find in favor of the landowners. 4. If hikers damage livestock or property, I doubt whether the County would be liable for the torts committed by the hikers. Your letter also indicates that the open space element is scheduled for review by the General Plan Update Advisory Committee on June 4. You asked me to advise you of any legal problems or needed text or mapping changes by May 30. This is not possible because I have not been supplied with either the text of the open space element or the maps which relate thereto.
SKB:dh |
