Eben v. State of California
Decision Date | 09 March 1982 |
Citation | 130 Cal.App.3d 416,181 Cal.Rptr. 714 |
Parties | Jeffrey L. EBEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE of California, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 5649. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Michael Franchetti and Willard A. Shank, Asst. Attys. Gen., Seward L. Andrews and Darryl L. Doke, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendant and appellant.
Canelo, Hansen & Wilson and Ronald W. Hansen, Merced, for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 after the jury returned a verdict for the defendant State of California (hereinafter State). The trial court specified juror misconduct as the sole reason for a new trial.
We also review the trial court's intermediate order denying the State's motion for a nonsuit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 906.
The State contends it is immune from liability as a matter of law under Government Code section 831.2, which provides: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by a natural condition of any unimproved public property, including but not limited to any natural condition of any lake, stream, bay, river or beach." (Added by Stats.1963, ch. 1681, § 1, p. 3273.) The trial court denied the nonsuit motion because the application of immunity was "a legal question sufficiently important that it should not be resolved at the trial court level."
For the reasons to be explained, we hold the State is immune from liability for plaintiff's injuries. Thus, we need not address the state's contentions regarding a new trial.
This action resulted from a tragic waterskiing accident at Millerton Lake on October 2, 1977, rendering plaintiff, then 16 years of age, a quadriplegic. Plaintiff at the time was learning how to single ski using a training method which caused him to be propelled toward the granite shore of the lake. He fell, striking a submerged rock which, as he acknowledged, was "at or immediately near the shoreline" of the lake. 1
The evidence is uncontradicted concerning the natural condition of the area where plaintiff was injured. Various aerial photographs of the "East Fine Gold Creek" area of the lake, the general locale of the accident, depict a granite embankment which constituted the walls of the San Joaquin River Canyon prior to its inundation by the construction of the Friant Dam.
On the day of the accident, the water level of the lake was 493 feet. The water level fluctuated only 3 feet between September 1 and the accident date, although it has a potential fluctuation of 110 feet. 2 After the accident, a photograph was taken at a water level three inches higher than on the day of the accident. A red buoy had been placed to mark the area where plaintiff fell and to aid Cartwright Aerial Surveys, the firm which took the photographs, to target the accident site. Plaintiff's counsel had previously identified the general area of the accident site by painting the initials "J.E." on an exposed rock on the bank. The general location of the accident was lakeward in an imaginary line from that rock. When the lake receded, the marker buoy placed by the State was in alignment with the so-called "J.E. rock."
A second aerial photograph was taken a month later when the water level at the lake was approximately eleven and a half feet lower than on the date of the accident. This photograph would have revealed any rock outcropping extending from the shoreline of the lake which a boater or skier would not anticipate and which was close enough to the surface for plaintiff to have hit when he fell. There is no such rock outcropping.
Mr. King, defendant's consulting civil engineer, testified that in addition to the two aerial photographs taken at different water levels, a photogrametric survey of the vicinity of the accident site was prepared by Cartwright at King's direction. Based on his personal inspection of the exposed area, the aerial photograph taken one month after the date of the accident, and the photogrametric survey of the area performed by Cartwright, it was Mr. King's opinion there were no isolated outcroppings away from shore that plaintiff could have hit. No evidence was introduced to rebut Mr. King's testimony.
King's conclusion is supported by plaintiff's testimony that he fell "at or immediately near the shoreline" and the impeachment testimony of the eyewitness Lee Anne Cox Entell, stating that plaintiff fell approximately six feet from shore.
Thus, the overwhelming evidence shows that plaintiff hit a rock which was appended to the shoreline of the lake. 3
The State's practice at Millerton Lake was to buoy submerged rocks that were within five feet of the surface and located in traveled areas where a boater would not anticipate any obstruction. Submerged rocks immediately adjacent to the shoreline of the lake are not buoyed because boaters are expected to use common sense when traveling close to shore.
The accident site is in a remote area of the lake, accessible only by boat. The only man-made improvements in the Fine Gold Bay area are (1) permanent "no ski" buoys located at the mouth of the old San Joaquin River channel, preventing waterskiing upstream from that point, (2) a floating restroom located in the vicinity of the mouth of Fine Gold Creek, and (3) a concessionaire's dock located on the north shore of Fine Gold Bay. All of these improvements are remote from the accident site, and plaintiff presented no evidence connecting any of these improvements with the accident.
The immunity set forth in Government Code section 831.2 is absolute. As stated in the Legislative Committee Comment to section 831.2:
Although, as Van Alstyne points out, the scope of the immunity is not entirely clear since the statute does not provide a precise standard for determining when, as a result of development activity, public property in its natural state ceases to be "unimproved," it appears that some form of physical change in the condition of the property at the location of the injury is required to preclude application of the immunity. (Van Alstyne, California Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) § 3.42 5, p. 256.)
For example, in Rendak v. State of California (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 286, 95 Cal.Rptr. 665, plaintiff's decedent was killed by a landslide at Brighton Beach State Park in Santa Cruz County. Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of nonsuit based on section 831.2 on the theory the presence of an improved parking area, administrative offices, portable lifeguard towers, restroom facilities and concrete fire rings in the vicinity of the accident site rendered the immunity inapplicable to the entire park. The reviewing court affirmed the judgment of nonsuit by emphasizing the immunity statute specifically extends to "any natural condition of any ... beach." The court pointed out that plaintiff's theory would Rendak noted the plaintiff's (Id., at pp. 287-289, 95 Cal.Rptr. 665.)
In Osgood v. County of Shasta (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 586, 123 Cal.Rptr. 442 (hrg. den.), the decedent was struck and killed by a motor boat while waterskiing. The appellant argued the shoreline of Shasta Lake was an extremely dangerous and hazardous condition due to the physical configuration of the lake, hundreds of coves, inlets, arms and legs which limited the visibility of motor boat operators and waterskiers throughout the over 365 miles of shoreline. Appellant argued section 831.2 only applied to natural lakes and since Shasta is man-made and not natural, the immunity did not apply. (Id., at pp. 587-588, 123 Cal.Rptr. 442.)
The Osgood court also rejected appellant's contention on the basis of the legislative...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morin v. County of Los Angeles
...under section 831.2 has been upheld despite human regulation of the artificial lake's water level (Eben v. State of California (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 416, 424-425, 181 Cal.Rptr. 714 (reversed an order granting plaintiff's motion for new trial and directed the trial court to enter judgment fo......
-
Knight v. City of Capitola
...to all public lakes, including Shasta Lake." (50 Cal.App.3d at p. 590, 123 Cal.Rptr. 442; cf. also Eben v. State of California (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 416, 422-424, 181 Cal.Rptr. 714 [artificial reservoir behind dam]; Keyes v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 882,887-889, ......
-
Goddard v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife
...and reservoirs. (Osgood v. County of Shasta (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 586, 587–588, 123 Cal.Rptr. 442 ; Eben v. State of California (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 416, 421–423, 181 Cal.Rptr. 714 (Eben ).) Moreover, section 831.2 has been broadly construed to provide immunity even where a natural conditio......
-
Cnty. of San Mateo v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cnty.
...under Rendak , "the immunity granted by [ section 831.2 ] is to be given a broad application"]; Eben v. State of California (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 416, 423, 181 Cal.Rptr. 714 ( Eben ) [area of lake where waterskiing accident occurred held not "improved" by placement of warning buoys "located......