Collins v. Tippett
| Decision Date | 06 June 1984 |
| Citation | 156 Cal.App.3d 1017,203 Cal.Rptr. 366 |
| Parties | Charles W. COLLINS, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ruth R. TIPPETT, et al., Defendants and Respondents. D000657. Civ. 28450. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Popko, Cornblum & McLean, Solomon, Ward, Seidenwurm & Smith, Bruce Cornblum, William T. Tyson, William O. Ward III and Murray M. Bankhead, San Diego, for plaintiff and appellant.
McInnis, Fitzgerald, Rees, Sharkey & McIntyre, Timothy S. Thomas and Virginia R. Gilson, San Diego, for defendants and respondents.
Plaintiff Charles Collins appeals a judgment following a court trial, holding defendant Ruth Tippett immune from negligence liability under Civil Code section 846. 1
Tippett owns one parcel of beachfront property in Solana Beach, California. Her home is built on a cliff overlooking the ocean and her property line extends down the cliff-face to the mean high tide line of the beach. Collins was sunbathing in the nude at the base of Tippett's cliff when a piece of gunite (a concrete-like substance sprayed on cliffs to prevent erosion) broke off the cliff and fell onto Collins, injuring him. Collins sued, alleging Tippett's negligent maintenance of the cliff caused his injuries. Tippett affirmatively defended, contending Civil Code section 846 immunized her from a negligence suit. The court found Tippett owned the beach (subject to a public easement created by implied dedication) and the cliff, Collins was recreating on Tippett's property, and therefore Tippett was immune from suit under the statute.
Civil Code section 846, which immunizes landowners from negligence liability to trespassers or licensees recreating on their property free of charge, was passed to encourage such landowners to leave their property accessible to the public (Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 699, 708, 190 Cal.Rptr. 494, 660 P.2d 1168; Parish v. Lloyd, 82 Cal.App.3d 785, 787-788, 147 Cal.Rptr. 431). Collins, however, contends Tippett is not covered by the statute, either because (1) Collins was not recreating on Tippett's property, but rather he was sunbathing on a public easement; or (2) Tippett opened only her beach to the public, while the dangerous condition existed on the cliff above, which she kept closed, and the statute requires the danger to exist on the publicly accessible portion of a defendant's land.
Collins' first contention is contrary to the language of the statute. Civil Code section 846 immunizes owners of "any estate" (italics added) in real property. Even after Tippett's property became subject to a public easement for recreational use, Tippett, as owner of the underlying fee, could properly invoke the statute's protection. (See Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, 2 Cal.3d 29, 44-45, fn. 3, 84 Cal.Rptr. 162, 465 P.2d 50.)
As to the second contention, Collins states Tippett allowed public use of the beach but not the cliffs and, because the dangerous condition existed on the cliffs, Tippett should be subject to suit. Collin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charpentier v. Von Geldern
...encourage the landowner to keep the property accessible and open to the public for recreational use without charge. (Collins v. Tippett (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1017,1019-1020,- 203 Cal.Rptr. 366; O'Shea v. Claude C. Wood Co., supra, 97 Cal.App.3d at pp. 908-909,- 159 Cal.Rptr. 125; Parishish ......
-
Domingue v. Presley of Southern California
...access. This result would significantly gut the legislative objective of section 846 and should be avoided. (See Collins v. Tippett [ (1984) ] 156 Cal.App.3d [1017,] at p. 1020 .)" (191 Cal.App.3d at p. 111, 236 Cal.Rptr. I conclude that defendant's land did not fall within the judicially-r......
-
Cudworth v. Midcontinent Communications, No. A3-02-19 (D. N.D. 4/11/2003)
...whose property is used gratuitously, with or without their permission, for recreational purposes"); Collins v. Tippett, 203 Cal. Rptr. 366, 368 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1984)(stating that California's recreational use statute immunizes landowners against liability to trespassers); Corey v. Stat......
-
Ritchie v. River Ranch, Inc.
...responsible for their own safety and eliminating the financial risk that had kept land closed." (Id. at p. 192; see Collins v. Tippett (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1017, 1020 [providing immunity to beachfront landowner against a lawsuit by a beach sunbather whowas injured by gunite falling from a ......