Berry

Berry v. State of California

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 43·2 Cal. App. 4th 688·3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 382·92 Daily Journal DAR 558·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 402
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 10, 1992C010696California1,077 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

Government Code section 831.7 provides in relevant part: “(a) Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity ... for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity, [f] (b) . . . ‘Hazardous recreational activity’ also means: ... [SO (2) Any form of diving into water from other than a diving board or diving platform, . . .” (Italics added; further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.)

In this case, we are called upon to determine the meaning of “diving platform.” We shall conclude a “diving platform” is an artificial structure designed and maintained for the purpose of diving. We shall further conclude that a free stump does not qualify as a diving platform.

Procedural History

Appellant, Sandra Dee Berry, filed a complaint against the State of California (the State) for damages for personal injuries sustained from diving into the American River. Following a successful demurrer, judgment was entered in favor of the State. Berry appeals contending the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer as she had…

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.