Ritchie v. River Ranch CA4/1 (2015) · DecisionDepot
Ritchie v. River Ranch CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Apr 24, 2015 No. D065511Unpublished
Filed 4/24/15 Ritchie v. River Ranch CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEBORAH RITCHIE et al., D065511
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. (Super. Ct. No. ECU07448)
RIVER RANCH, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Juan Ulloa,
Judge. Affirmed.
McNicholas & McNicholas and John P. McNicholas III, for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.
Law Office of A. Daniel Bacalski, Jr., A. Daniel Bacalski, Jr., and Denise M.
Serino for Defendant and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Deborah and David Ritchie (together the Ritchies)1 entered private property
without permission for a sightseeing expedition to view naturally occurring mud
volcanoes and mud pots near Calipatria, California. As Deborah walked between two
mud volcanoes on apparently solid ground, her left leg suddenly sank into a hot mud pot
and she sustained burn injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for the
defendant and owner of the property, River Ranch, Inc. (River Ranch), based on the
recreational use immunity provided by Civil Code section 846.2
On appeal, the Ritchies contend triable issues of fact exist regarding the
application of an exception to the recreational use immunity statute based on a
landowner's alleged willful failure to warn or guard against a dangerous condition. We
conclude there is no evidence River Ranch willfully failed to warn or guard against a
dangerous condition. Because the recreational use immunity statute precludes liability,
we affirm the judgment.
1 Because the Ritchies share the same surname, we refer to them individually by first name for clarity. No disrespect is intended.
2 Further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise indicated. Section 846 is referred to as the "recreational use immunity statute." (Jackson v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1114.)
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A
In May 2012 the Ritchies drove from their home in Louisiana to Yuma, Arizona to
help their niece move and to visit relatives. After spending one night in Yuma, they
drove to Calipatria, California to see the mud volcanoes in the desert as an interesting or
fun thing to do. David's sister and brother-in-law had seen the mud volcanoes and sent
David pictures, from either the internet or their personal pictures. David's brother-in-law
told them there were geothermal plants in the area and described mud bubbling from the
ground, which emitted hissing sounds.
When they arrived at the property, they parked their vehicle in a dirt area off a dirt
road, approximately 100 yards from the mud volcanoes. The group wandered around
sightseeing for about 20 minutes, looking at dozens of mud volcanoes and the bubbling
mud, taking pictures, and listening to the steam. They saw mud bubble out of the ground
and steam coming out of the ground. They could tell the mud pots, mud volcanoes and
steam vents were hot.
Deborah walked within two to three feet of the mud volcanoes. As she walked
between two mud volcano mounds on ground, which appeared to be solid, her left leg
suddenly sank into a mud pot up to her hip. When David heard her cry out, he turned and
saw her leg sinking into the ground. He ran and pulled her out. Deborah was badly
burned on her left leg and required medical treatment.
3
B
River Ranch owns the property on which the mud volcanoes are located. The
chief executive officer of River Ranch, Frederick Young, heard that people come on the
land to see the volcanoes. He visited the property approximately a month before the
incident. However, prior to this incident, River Ranch was unaware of any injuries or
accidents occurring on this property.
River Ranch did not learn of the Ritchies' presence on the property until several
months after the accident. It did not invite them onto the property and made no
representations the property was safe for recreation. The Ritchies did not pay for
admission to the property. The area is not fenced and the only signs River Ranch ever
posted on the property were standard no trespassing signs, but it is not clear from the
record when these signs were posted.
C
The Ritchies sued River Ranch for premises liability contending River Ranch
"willfully or maliciously, or [with] unconscious disregard of its duty to plaintiffs, failed
to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use . . . or activity . . . ." David sought
damages for loss of consortium. As an affirmative defense, River Ranch asserted the
action was barred by the recreational user immunity provided by section 846.
The trial court granted River Ranch's motion for summary judgment based on the
recreational use immunity statute. The court determined the Ritchies did not present
admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding an exception to the immunity
statute. There was no evidence the Ritchies were invited to use the property and there
4
was no evidence River Ranch "had any prior knowledge of any possibility that the
ground would give way between the 'mud volcanoes' in the manner described by [the
Ritchies], hence there is no basis in the evidence presented to the court to support a claim
of failure to warn or guard, much less a malicious or willful failure to do so."
DISCUSSION
I
A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if it shows one or more elements of
the cause of action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to the plaintiff's
cause of action. If the defendant meets this initial burden, the burden of production shifts
to the plaintiff to show a triable, material controversy as to whatever element of the cause
of action defendant claims is not established or a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
"[W]e review the record de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the
moving and opposition papers except that to which objections have been made and
sustained." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) We liberally
construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment. (Wiener v.
Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, 1142) "There is a triable
issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to
find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the
applicable standard of proof." (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) Thus, a party
"cannot avoid summary judgment by asserting facts based on mere speculation and
5
conjecture, but instead must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact."
(LaChapelle v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 977, 981.)
II
Section 846 provides a property owner does not owe a 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 the property to individuals entering the property for
a recreational purpose. The statute defines "recreational purpose" by listing examples of
numerous recreational activities such as "hiking, . . . sightseeing, . . . nature study, nature
contacting, . . . and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or
scientific sites." (§ 846.)
The statute expresses the strong legislative policy that private land should be open
for recreational use. (Hubbard v. Brown (1990) 50 Cal.3d 189, 192.) "Section 846 was
enacted to encourage property owners to allow the general public to engage in
recreational activities free of charge on privately owned property. [Citations.] The
statutory goal was to constrain the growing tendency of private landowners to bar public
access to their land for recreational uses out of fear of incurring tort liability." (Id. at
p. 193.) "Section 846 accomplishes this purpose by immunizing persons with interests in
property from tort liability to recreational users, thus making recreational users
responsible for their own safety and eliminating the financial risk that had kept land
closed." (Id. at p. 192; see Collins v. Tippett (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1017, 1020
[providing immunity to beachfront landowner against a lawsuit by a beach sunbather who
6
was injured by gunite falling from a cliff advances the "goal of keeping as much private
land as possible open for public recreational use"].)
"The public policy balance achieved by the statute is clear: landowners are broadly
encouraged to allow access to their property; recreationists who take advantage of this
access waive their right to sue for ordinary negligence. The determination as to whether
the land is 'suitable' for recreation is placed on the user, not the courts." (Ornelas v.
Randolph (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1095, 1106.)
The statute provides three exceptions to the recreational user immunity: (1) for a
landowner's "willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition,
use, structure or activity"; (2) for injury suffered where permission to enter for a
recreational purpose was granted in exchange for payment or consideration; and (3) for
individuals expressly invited by the landowner to come on to the property, as opposed to
those merely permitted on the property. (§ 846.)
The Ritchies contend the first exception applies because they allege River Ranch
willfully failed to warn or guard by failing to fence the area or post warning signs.3 We,
therefore, review generally accepted principles regarding willful misconduct.
" 'First, it is generally recognized that willful or wanton misconduct is separate and
distinct from negligence, involving different principles of liability and different defenses.
[Citations.] Unlike negligence, which implies a failure to use ordinary care, and even
gross negligence, which connotes such a lack of care as may be presumed to indicate a
3 It is undisputed the Ritchies did not pay for the recreational use of the property and River Ranch did not invite them to use the property. 7
passive and indifferent attitude toward results, willful misconduct is not marked by a
mere absence of care. Rather, it " ' "involves a more positive intent actually to harm
another or to do an act with a positive, active and absolute disregard of its
consequences." ' " [Citations.] . . . While the word "willful" implies an intent, the
intention must relate to the misconduct and not merely to the fact that some act was
intentionally done.' " (Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th
927, 939-940 (Manuel), quoting Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 Cal.4th 714,
729-730 (Calvillo), overruled on other grounds in Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853,
fn. 19.)
" 'Second, willfulness generally is marked by three characteristics: (1) actual or
constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended; (2) actual or constructive
knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger; and (3)
conscious failure to act to avoid the peril. [Citations.] As the foregoing suggests, willful
misconduct does not invariably entail a subjective intent to injure. It is sufficient that a
reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances would be aware of the highly
dangerous character of his or her conduct.' " (Manuel, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 940,
quoting Calvillo, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 730.)
The Ritchies focus on the three general characteristics of willfulness. They
contend triable issues of fact exist regarding whether River Ranch had actual or
constructive notice of a dangerous condition of the property (hot mud pots, mud
volcanoes and steam vents or fragile adjacent ground), whether it had constructive
8
knowledge injury was probable, and whether it consciously failed to act to avoid the
peril.
The Ritchies' argument boils down to this: Young observed the property with the
mud volcanoes and mud pots and heard people visited the area, he must have observed
they were hot because the Ritchies observed they were hot, and River Ranch did not post
warning signs or fence the property. Therefore, according to the Ritchies, River Ranch
willfully failed to warn or guard against a dangerous condition. We are not persuaded.
Although these facts may show a passive indifference or an absence of care, we
cannot conclude these facts rise to the level of willful misconduct necessary to fall within
the exception to section 846's recreational use immunity. Willful misconduct cannot be
presumed. (O'Shea v. Claude C. Wood Co. (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 903, 913 (O'Shea)
superseded by statute on unrelated grounds as stated in Jackson v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.
(2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1117.)
River Ranch presented evidence it had no knowledge of any injuries on the
property prior to this incident and did not willfully or maliciously fail to guard or warn
against any dangerous condition. (O'Shea, supra, 97 Cal.App.3d at p. 913 [declaration
stating defendant did not know plaintiff was using the property and did not willfully fail
to guard or warn of danger negated willful conduct]; see Manuel, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th
at p. 946 [no evidence of prior incidents or accidents involving climbing of a
transmission tower]; but see Lostritto v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1977) 73
Cal.App.3d 737, 750 [willful misconduct found involving railway trestle over a popular
swimming area where there was easy access from the beach to the trestle, the practice of
9
diving from the trestle was common knowledge and the railway company was informed
of prior injuries involving diving from the trestle].)
The Ritchies presented no evidence River Ranch had a positive intent to harm or
absolutely disregarded the consequences of its inaction. (Manuel, supra, 173
Cal.App.4th at p. 940.) There is no evidence River Ranch's conduct was so highly
dangerous, so unreasonable in character or demonstrated such a disregard for a known
risk of harm to the public it should be deemed willful misconduct. Nor is there evidence
it was "highly probable" harm would follow if River Ranch did not close or fence its
property or place warning signs. (Id. at p. 939.)
River Ranch did not create the allegedly dangerous condition. This is not like
New v. Consolidated Rock Products Co. (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 681, a case relied upon
by the Ritchies, where a jury found a quarry owner willfully failed to warn or guard
against motorcyclists riding over a cliff. In that case, the landowner created the cliff by
enlarging an excavation pit and cutting away the end of a two-lane road, leaving a sheer
20-foot drop, but did not place adequate warnings or barriers despite its knowledge
motorcyclists used the area regularly. (Id. at pp. 685-686; see also Termini v. United
States (9th Cir. 1992) 963 F.2d 1264, 1269 [United States Forest Service built a road
abruptly ending at a cliff without warning].)
Additionally, the Ritchies presented no evidence River Ranch knew or should
have known the ground between the mud volcanoes was fragile or would give way.
"[T]here is no legal obligation on the part of a landowner . . . to inspect or warn of natural
hazards" or to make the property safe "for recreational uses by trespassers . . . . Such a
10
burden, if imposed, would make an innocent landowner a virtual insurer against natural
hazardous conditions . . . which could cause injury to recreational users." (Charpentier v.
Von Geldern (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 101, 111 [owner not liable to trespasser injured by
diving in a shallow portion of a river on owner's property].)
We conclude the trial court properly found no evidentiary support for the willful
failure to warn exception to the recreational use immunity of section 846 and the statute
bars the Ritchies' claims. To hold otherwise, would undermine the Legislature's goal of
keeping private land open for recreational use because landowners with natural resources
or natural wonders would be more inclined to close their property to public use to avoid
liability. (Collins v. Tippett, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at p. 1020.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MCDONALD, J.
MCINTYRE, J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the recreational use immunity statute (Civil Code section 846) bars the plaintiffs' premises liability claims because there was no evidence the landowner willfully or maliciously failed to warn or guard against a dangerous condition.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the recreational use immunity statute.
Whether there was a triable issue of fact regarding the 'willful or malicious failure to guard or warn' exception to the recreational use immunity statute.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude there is no evidence River Ranch willfully failed to warn or guard against a dangerous condition. Because the recreational use immunity statute precludes liability, we affirm the judgment.”
“The Ritchies presented no evidence River Ranch had a positive intent to harm or absolutely disregarded the consequences of its inaction.”