Case Number: BC659083 Hearing Date: October 30, 2018 Dept: 4

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On April 21, 2017, plaintiff Sheila Parker filed a complaint against defendants City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, Tarzana Park, Tarzana Recreational Center, Balboa Sports Center, and Property Owners of Property Located at 5655 Vanalden Ave. for premises liability based on a trip and fall on broken pavement in a park on April 23, 2015.

On September 24, 2018, trial was continued from October 22, 2018 to February 21, 2019.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 438 states, in relevant part: “(b)(1) A party may move for judgment on the pleadings. . . . (c)(1) The motion provided for in this section may only be made on one of the

following grounds: . . . . (B) If the moving party is a defendant, that either of the following conditions exist: . . . . (ii) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”

A motion for judgment on the pleadings “has the purpose and effect of a general demurrer.” Smiley v. Citibank (s.D.), N.A. (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 138, 146 (citation omitted). “[T]he trial court generally confines itself to the complaint and accepts as true all material facts alleged therein. As appropriate, however, it may extend its consideration to matters that are subject to judicial notice. In this, it performs essentially the same task that it would undertake in ruling on a general demurrer.” Id. (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

Defendant City of Los Angeles requests judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant because defendant is immune under Gov. Code §§831.4(a) and (b) (trail immunity).

Gov. Code § 831.4 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

A public entity . . . is not liable for an injury caused by a condition of:

(a) Any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, riding, including animal and all types of vehicular riding, water sports, recreational or scenic areas and which is not a (1) city street or highway or (2) county, state or federal highway or (3) public street or highway of a joint highway district, boulevard district, bridge and highway district or similar district formed for the improvement or building of public streets or highways.

(b) Any trail used for the above purposes. . . .

Trail immunity “extends to trails that are used for the activities listed in subdivision (a), and to trails that are used solely for access to such activities . . . whether or not the trail is paved.” Amberger-Warren v. City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1074, 1078. In considering whether trail immunity applies, the Court must consider (1) whether the alleged accident occurred on a trail under the accepted definitions of a trail and (2) whether the injury was caused by conditions of the trail. See id. at 1078, 1083. “[I]t is well established that trail immunity covers negligent maintenance of a trail, so the defendant could not be liable for the debris on the trail.” Arvizu v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal. App. 5th 760, 768. See also Leyva v. Crockett & Co, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal. App. 5th 1105, 1110-1111 (holding that trail immunity must extend to claims arising from the design of the trail, as well as its maintenance, and that location, no less than design must be immunized for the same reasons).

Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell on broken pavement in a park on April 23, 2015. As defendant argues, there is no suggestion in the complaint that the pavement causing injury was other than pavement used as a path to, from, through, or otherwise providing access to recreational facilities within a public park of the City of Los Angeles.

Based on the allegations in the complaint, defendant City is immune under Gov. Code §831.4.

The motion is therefore GRANTED WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 30, 2018

_____________________________

Christopher K. Lui

Judge of the Superior Court