Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agritourism

Recreational Use Statute Provides Immunity against Personal Injury Claim

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Miller v. Weitzen, 133 Cal. App. 4th 732 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005), the California Court of Appeals held that California's recreational use statute barred a personal injury action against owners of the property on which the plaintiff suffered a horse riding injury.

Background

Plaintiff was injured while riding her horse on a public trail when the horse slipped and fell on a part of the trail that crossed the defendant's driveway, and brought this personal injury action against the defendant. Id. at 734. The district court found that the recreational use statute, California Civil Code § 846, immunized the defendants from suit, and the plaintiff appealed. Id. at 735.

Arguments

Defendants argued that California Civil Code § 846, which immunizes property owners from liability arising from the recreational use of their property, barred the plaintiff's claim. Id. at 736.

Plaintiff argued that the defendants were not "property owners" subject to the protection of § 846, and alternatively argued that the statutory exception for persons who enter property "for a consideration" was triggered by her payment of trail maintenance fees to her riding club, and therefore the defendants were not immunized from suit. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court found that the defendants had sufficient property interest in the right of way to be covered by § 846. Id. at 737-39. The court further explained that to trigger the consideration exception of § 846, payment must be made in exchange for "permission to enter" the property, which has generally been interpreted as meaning some sort of entrance fee. Id. at 739. Because no entrance fee was required to use the property at issue, the court held that the exception to immunity did not apply, and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the defendants. Id. at 739-40.

The case was decided on October 20, 2005.