Perez

Perez v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 878·27 Cal. App. 4th 1380·33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 55·94 Daily Journal DAR 12227·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6656
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 1994B075087California2,944 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

Plaintiff, Jaime Perez, appeals from an order of dismissal after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer to his first amended complaint for negligence. We conclude that Perez has failed to state a cause of action because the defendant, the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter, the city), is statutorily immune from suit for injury from the hazardous recreational activity of “tree rope swinging.” (Gov. Code, § 831.7, subd. (b).)

Facts

We view the limited factual allegations in this rather bare-bones complaint as true in accordance with the usual rule governing appellate review following a successful demurrer. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125 [ 271 Cal.Rptr. 146 , 793 P.2d 479 , 16 A.L.R.5th 903].) On October 13, 1991, Perez, then 12 years old, was at Peck Park in San Pedro when he fell and injured himself while swinging from a rope in a tree. The city knew that young children were attracted by and swung from ropes in trees over rough terrain and high gorges.

Discussion

I. Hazardous Recreational Activities

Section 831.7 provides that a public entity is not liable to “any person who participates in a hazardous…

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.