 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davis v. County of San Mateo2/28/2003
Dean Ahlberg, an accident reconstruction engineer called by plaintiff, testified that the stairs were not readily visible from the knoll above them, and that it was difficult to find them.
This evidence does not establish as the only permissible conclusion that the stairs are part of an established path, track or route leading to recreational activities. It is true that picnic benches lie somewhere beyond the open space above the stairs, but the evidence does not prove the existence of an established route from the parking lot below the stairs to that picnic area, or any other established route traversing the stairs. While the policy considerations underlying trail immunity are weighty, " n the absence of any reason to believe the [stairway] in question is an integral part of an immunized `trail,' [they] do not come into play." (Treweek, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 234.) If the stairs are integrated into a path or trail, immunity would apply under Treweek. The record does not demonstrate that they are. Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to grant the County's motion for non-suit.
To assist the trial court on remand, we emphasize the limited scope of our holding. We do not hold that trail immunity is inapplicable as a matter of law. We hold only that the granting of a non-suit was premature because plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to establish conclusively that the stairs were an integrated and essential part of an immunized trail. On remand, a jury may consider the question in light of all the evidence admitted at trial.
Disposition
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Davis shall recover his costs on appeal.
We concur:
JONES, P.J.
STEVENS, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|