AMBERGER-WARREN

AMBERGER-WARREN v. City of Piedmont

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 4th 1074·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1554·2006 Daily Journal DAR 13609·49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 631·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9511
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 6, 2006A112886California4,101 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marchiano, J.

Plaintiff Anni Amberger-Warren was injured when she slipped and fell in a dog park in Piedmont. She sued the City of Piedmont on the theory that her injuries were caused by a dangerous condition of public property, and defendant obtained summary judgment on the basis of trail immunity (Gov. Code, § 831.4, subd. (b)). Plaintiff contends on appeal that, as a matter of law or as a triable issue of fact, the accident did not occur on a “trail” within the meaning of the immunity statute, and that, even if the accident happened on a trail, defendant is not insulated from liability because the accident was caused by dangerous conditions defendant created that were “unrelated” to the trail.

We examine the application of section 831.4 to a paved pathway in an urban park setting. The principal issues are: (1) whether the pathway in question was a “sidewalk” for purposes of section 831.4, and, if so, whether a sidewalk can ever be a “trail” under the statute; and (2) whether trail immunity precludes liability for the design and location, as well as the maintenance, of a trail. We hold that the pathway here is a trail under the statute, even if it could be characterized as a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.