A personal injury case may be borne out of the incident causing the injury provided that the same falls under the exception to the general rule of the so-called “recreational use immunity”. Generally, landowners and others with a possessory or non-possessory interest in real property owe no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for a “recreational purpose”; nor is there a duty to warn “recreational users” of hazardous conditions or activities on the premises. [CC § 846] [2:3400].

It is intended to encourage private landowners to permit free public use of their property for recreational purposes, by relieving them of broad tort liability exposure. [Ornelas v. Randolph (1993) 4 C4th 1095, 1103, 17 CR2d 594, 599; see Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Super.Ct.(Fernandez) (1983) 33 C3d 699, 707–708, 190 CR 494, 499] [2:3401]. This recreational use immunity extends only to premises liability claims arising from the landowner’s alleged breach of property-based duties; i.e., the statute relieves landowners of a duty of care to recreational users to prevent or remedy dangerous physical conditions on their property. [Klein v. United States (2010) 50 C4th 68, 81, 112 CR3d 722, 731–732] [2:3402]. The immunity applies whether or not the injured party was engaged in recreation at the time the injury occurred … so long as he or she entered upon the premises for a “recreational purpose.” [See Ornelas v. Randolph, supra, 4 C4th at 1101–1102, 17 CR2d at 598; ackson v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., supra, 94 CA4th at 1115, 114 CR2d at 834–835] [2:3406].

However, there are exceptions to this general rule, wherein recreational users may be held potentially liable. First, a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition or activity on the property wherein plaintiff must show that: Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the peril; Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge that injury was probable; and Defendant consciously failed to act to avoid the peril [2:3418]. Second, for paid admission, wherein a permission to enter for a recreational purpose was granted for a consideration—i.e., paid admission to the premises—other than consideration paid by the State [CC § 846; see Miller v. Weitzen (2005) 133 CA4th 732, 739–740, 35 CR3d 73, 78–79] [2:3420]. I suggest that you seek personal assistance from a lawyer to assist you in filing your personal injury claim.

What our customers have to say about Hogan Injury experience

This Law firm was tremendously helpful! Every question that I had was answered with honesty and integrity. Shannon Gram, San Jose
Very helpful. Explained everything in great detail. Went above and beyond my expectations. Alyssa Samuals, Modesto