Galusha v. Pennington CA2/6

Filed 7/24/13 Galusha v. Pennington CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

RAYMOND GALUSHA, 2d Civil No. B241421 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2010-00376489- Plaintiff and Appellant, CU-PO-SIM) (Ventura County) v.

THERESA PENNINGTON et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Raymond Galusha filed an action for premises liability and intentional torts against defendants Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District (the District) and its employee, Theresa Pennington. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND While hiking on an undeveloped dirt trail in the Tierra Rejada Park, Galusha was attacked by two dogs. He suffered serious injuries. Galusha saw a man and a woman nearby and assumed they owned the dogs and were homeless. The man took one of the dogs by the collar and told Galusha to stop hitting it. The District operates and maintains the 150-acre park. Pennington is a business and accounting supervisor for the District. She interacted with Galusha concerning his administrative claim.

Galusha brought this action against the District and Pennington on the theory that they had created a dangerous condition in the park by allowing people who were homeless to loiter there with their vicious dogs or that they were keepers of vicious feral dogs. After demurrer, two causes of action remained against the District and Pennington: (1) premises liability, and (2) "intentional tort." The District and Pennington moved for summary judgment on the grounds they were immune from liability arising from recreational use of trails or natural conditions of land (Gov. Code, §§ 831.2, 831.4) and there was no evidence of a dangerous condition, notice, or causation to support Galusha's claims. The trial court sustained numerous objections to Galusha's evidence, deemed all of the District's facts established, and granted the motion. Galusha's opening brief on appeal focuses solely on the premises liability cause of action. In support of their motion, the District and Pennington offered excerpts of Galusha's deposition and Pennington's declaration. They did not dispute that dogs attacked Galusha at the park or that he was seriously injured. Galusha testified in deposition that he was hiking in the "wash" area of the park when two dogs attacked him. One dog had a large collar with tags. Galusha eventually fought off the dogs and ran toward a man and woman for help. He believed they were homeless. He thought the man owned one of the dogs because the man grabbed it by the collar, but Galusha said, "[I]f [the man] was the owner of the dog, I do not know." Galusha never saw the man or woman again. He did not know if they were actually homeless. Galusha testified that the area where he was hiking was "undeveloped" and in its "natural conditions." He had hiked on that trail without incident three times a week for two years. He had not previously seen "homeless people or dogs." He knew of no prior incidents involving dog bites except one at "another park" and he did not know which park. Pennington declared that her job duties include providing support to the District park rangers and maintaining records of all incidents and complaints at the park.