Williams v. County of Sonoma CA1/5

Filed 7/27/22 Williams v. County of Sonoma CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CATHERINE WILLIAMS, A162966 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV-261355) COUNTY OF SONOMA, Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Catherine Williams, after successfully defending her jury verdict against an appeal by defendant County of Sonoma (County), sought appellate attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.1 The trial court denied fees, and we affirm. BACKGROUND “On July 10, 2016, Plaintiff and a friend began a 30-mile bicycle ride to train for an upcoming organized, noncompetitive, long-distance ride. As they biked down a hill on a road maintained by the County, they encountered a pothole measuring four feet long, three feet four inches wide, and four inches

1 All undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

deep. Plaintiff was traveling at least 25 miles per hour and, by the time she saw the pothole, was unable to avoid it. Her bicycle struck the pothole and she was thrown to the pavement, incurring serious injuries. The pothole had been reported to the County more than six weeks earlier, on May 25, 2016. [¶] Plaintiff sued the County for dangerous condition of public property (Gov. Code, § 835). A jury found for Plaintiff, allocating 70 percent of the fault to the County and 30 percent to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was awarded more than $1.3 million in damages.” (Williams v. County of Sonoma (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 125, 128, fn. omitted (Williams I).) The County appealed, arguing Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. (Williams I, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 128.) This doctrine, when “ ‘[a]pplied in the sporting context, ... precludes liability for injuries arising from those risks deemed inherent in a sport; as a matter of law, others have no legal duty to eliminate those risks or otherwise protect a sports participant from them.’ [Citation.] A limited duty may nonetheless be owed: ‘[U]nder the primary assumption of risk doctrine, [certain defendants] have no duty to eliminate those risks [inherent in a recreational activity], but do owe participants the duty not to unreasonably increase the risks of injury beyond those inherent in the activity.’ ” (Id. at p. 129.) This court rejected the County’s argument that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. We assumed, without deciding, that the doctrine applied to claims against public entities for dangerous conditions of public property, and that Plaintiff’s “long-distance, recreational cycling constitutes the type of activity covered by the primary assumption of risk doctrine.” (Williams I, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 130.) Guided by the policy underlying the doctrine, we found the County had “a