Donnachie v. East Bay Regional Park District

California Court of Appeal Jun 13, 1963 No. Civ. 20640; Civ. 20671Published

Before: Shoemaker

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the East Bay Regional Park District was not immune from suit but that the trial should be stayed pending statutory expiration, and that the cities were properly granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence of the cities' control over the park.

Issues

Whether Civil Code section 22.3 granted the East Bay Regional Park District immunity from tort liability.
Whether an anonymous pamphlet constitutes sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding the cities' control over the park.

Disposition. Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court erred in granting respondent district’s motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings.”

“an affidavit or declaration which is based upon hearsay or conclusions and which contains no competent averments made by one having personal knowledge of the facts is of no value”

“this attempt to avoid competent averments of fact and to rely solely upon an anonymous pamphlet, which is the grossest form of hearsay evidence, cannot be deemed sufficient”

SHOEMAKER, J.

Plaintiffs Paul Andrew Donnachie, Joan M. Donnachie and Robert P. Donnachie, appeal from separate judgments entered in favor of defendants East Bay Regional Park District, City of Oakland, City of Berkeley, and City of Piedmont.

Plaintiff Paul Donnachie, a minor, brought this action through his guardian

ad litem,

Joan Donnachie, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when he was kicked by a horse. The accident occurred on May 7, 1960, in Redwood Regional Park, where the plaintiff, then 4 years old, was hiking with others, supervised by Gerald and Marian Spring-man. Walking along a hiking trail, they met a horseback rider using the same trail, and plaintiff was kicked in the head and body by the horse. The complaint alleged that at the time of the accident, defendants City of Oakland, City of Berkeley, and City of Piedmont, managed, controlled, maintained, directed and operated defendant East Bay Regional Park District and the Redwood Regional Park; that defendants had negligently failed to provide adequate signs showing that the hiking trail was also used as a bridle trail; that each of the defendants knew or ought to have known of the danger to hikers inherent in the presence of horseback riders upon the same trail; that plaintiff’s injuries were a direct and proximate result of defendants’ negligence.

Defendant East Bay Regional Park District moved for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings upon the ground that the enactment of Civil Code, section 22.3, had rendered it immune from tort liability.

Defendants City of Oakland and City of Berkeley moved for summary judgment upon the ground that no triable issue

[174]

of fact existed since neither defendant had any authority, control, or responsibility for the Redwood Regional Park, which was owned and controlled solely by defendant East Bay Regional Park District.

Defendant City of Piedmont also moved for summary judgment, relying upon both of the grounds raised by the other defendants.

The trial court granted the motion of defendant East Bay Regional Park District for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment. Summary judgments were also granted in favor of defendants City of Oakland, City of Berkeley, and City of Piedmont.

Donnachie v. East Bay Regional Park District

AI Brief

SHOEMAKER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief