Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

Plaintiff Injured by Cattle on City Property Asserts
"State-Created Danger" Theory of Liability

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Schmidt v. Hoover, No. C. 08-5809 PJH, 2009 WL 1011715 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2009), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that a plaintiff who was trampled by a bull in an open space maintained by the City of Walnut Creek had failed to allege sufficient facts showing that the "state-created danger" theory was applicable to establish liability against the City. The court found that she had failed to allege that the City acted with deliberate indifference to her safety and well-being, and therefore granted the City's motion to dismiss.

Background

A hiker in a recreation area that was part of an open space maintained by the City of Walnut Creek was trampled by a bull or cow belonging to a local rancher, and brought this action against the city and the rancher. Id. at *1. The City routinely issued grazing permits to local ranchers to use the open space, which consisted of 2700 acres of undeveloped land and also contained hiking trails. Id. The City's municipal code also permitted unleashed dogs in the open space. Id. The plaintiff asserted that the rancher knew that the bull or cow that trampled her had a "dangerous nature," and that he was aware of the high probability of a dangerous confrontation between his cattle and hikers in the area but had failed to warn against the dangerous situation. Id. She also claimed that the presence of unleashed dogs increased the likelihood that cattle would view the presence of dogs and humans as a threat, and that allowing dogs and humans in the grazing areas had resulted in several harmful incidents over the past several years. Id. The City and the rancher moved to dismiss the claims. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiff argued that the City took affirmative acts by entering into grazing contracts and issuing grazing permits, and that despite knowing of the unreasonable risk of harm presented by the situation, it continued to allow unleashed dogs and grazing in the area, thereby creating a danger to her that would not have otherwise existed. Id. at *3-4.

The City moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id. Specifically, it argued that the complaint failed to allege a violation of constitutional rights, because "there is no constitutional right to be free from a cow attack, just as there is no constitutional right to be free from trip hazards in a public sidewalk." Id. at *2. It further argued that it could not be held liable under the "state-created danger" theory because "the issuance of grazing permits is not the kind of affirmative, deliberately indifferent conduct necessary to trigger substantive due process protections." Id. at *3.

The rancher also moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that without the federal claim, the court lacked jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. Id. at *1.

Analysis and Holdings

The court found that the plaintiff had not alleged facts showing that the City deprived her of any fundamental liberty or bodily integrity rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, concluding that "[a]t most, they have alleged negligence on the part of the City-possibly a failure to warn of known dangers." Id. at *5. The court held that the plaintiff had not established the "state-created danger" theory because she had failed to allege facts showing that the City acted with deliberate indifference to her safety or well-being, and therefore granted the City's motion to dismiss. Id. at *6-8. The court denied the rancher's motion to dismiss, however, because the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim was asserted only against the City. Id. at *8.

The case was decided on April 15, 2009.