Ertl v. Parks & Recreation Com'n

Citation76 Wn.App. 110,882 P.2d 1185
Decision Date01 November 1994
Docket NumberNo. 13094-1-III,13094-1-III
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
PartiesTibor Anthony ERTL, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION, Respondent.
Dustin D. Deissner, Van Camp & Bennion, Spokane, for appellant

Carl B. Paul, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondent.

SWEENEY, Judge.

Tibor Anthony Ertl hit a pothole while riding his bicycle in Riverside State Park and was injured. He filed a damage suit against the State of Washington for negligence. The State's motion for summary judgment was granted and the suit was dismissed.

Mr. Ertl appeals, contending among other things that the court erred in finding the pothole was not a latent condition pursuant to the recreational land use statute, RCW 4.24.210. We affirm.

FACTS

Riverside State Park is a public park situated along the Spokane River. It is open for public use without fee. Park rangers employed by the State maintain the park roads and in the discharge of that responsibility regularly patrol the roads. In the spring of 1990, a park ranger noticed a "small four by six hole" on a park road frequented by recreational bicyclists; he ignored it because "it was not a safety hazard, anything to be concerned about."

On June 15, 1990, Mr. Ertl and a companion, Kathleen Weisenburger, both experienced bicyclists, rode through the park. It was a sunny day. Ms. Weisenburger had previously traveled on the park road; Mr. Ertl had not. The two were traveling 20 miles per hour down an approximately 200-foot stretch of straight road when Ms. Weisenburger noticed the pothole, now between 1 and 2 feet wide and about 4 inches deep. She had seen the pothole before and moved to avoid it. Mr. Ertl, riding about 35 feet behind her, did not see the pothole, struck it and fell, breaking his hip. According to Mr. Ertl, shadows from a tree adjacent to the road, contrasting with the sunlit portions of the road, together with other road patches near the pothole, effectively obscured or distorted his view of the pothole. The pothole was patched soon after the accident.

Mr. Ertl sued the State in February 1991. The State moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity pursuant to former RCW 4.24.210, 1 the recreational land use statute. The court struck portions of Mr. Ertl's declaration and portions

of the affidavit of his accident reconstructionist, John Lally, 2 and granted the State's motion.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Ertl contends the recreational land use statute does not afford the State immunity because the injury was caused by a known, latent, dangerous condition of the park road for which warning signs had not been conspicuously posted. RCW 4.24.210.

At common law, a landowner's duty of care to persons entering his or her land is governed by the status of those entering, i.e., trespassers, licensees or invitees. Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Soc'y, 124 Wash.2d 121, 128, 875 P.2d 621 (1994); see generally 3 Stuart M. Speiser, et al., The American Law of Torts § 14:3 (1986). Generally, a landowner owes trespassers and licensees "the duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring them, whereas to invitees the landowner owes an affirmative duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition." Van Dinter v. Kennewick, 121 Wash.2d 38, 41-42, 846 P.2d 522 (1993).

The recreational land use statute was enacted in 1967 to encourage the owners of agricultural or forest lands to open land for gratuitous recreational use, by limiting landowner liability. Van Dinter, at 42, 846 P.2d 522. The immunity afforded by the statute was extended "to encourage owners or others in lawful possession and control of land and water areas or channels to make them available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon ...". RCW 4.24.200. But the limitation of liability is not without exceptions: (1) when the recreational user is charged a fee; (2) when the user is injured by an intentional act; or (3) when the user sustains injuries caused by a "known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted". Former RCW 4.24.210. 3

Mr. Ertl contends he was injured by a known, dangerous, artificial and latent condition of the road. Because this is a review of a grant of summary judgment, our review is de novo. Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 124 Wash.2d 205, 208, 875 P.2d 1213 (1994).

Both parties tie disposition of this case to the meaning of the words "latent condition". Mr. Ertl argues the condition is latent whenever the sun casts shadows across the pothole. The State responds that a condition is either latent or it is not--the statute does not provide for "occasionally latent" conditions. We believe that neither position is dispositive.

Even assuming the pothole here was a latent condition, this case raises a second question which is dispositive: whether the landowner had actual, as opposed to constructive, knowledge that a dangerous, latent condition existed. Tabak v. State, 73 Wash.App. 691, 696, 870 P.2d 1014 (1994); Gaeta v. Seattle City Light, 54 Wash.App. 603, 609, 774 P.2d 1255, review denied, 113 Wash.2d 1020, 781 P.2d 1322 (1989); see also Van Dinter, 121 Wash.2d at 44-45, 846 P.2d 522 ("For example, a condition such as a partially covered well may not be readily apparent to the recreational user. In such a situation landowner liability can arise under RCW 4.24.210 only if the landowner knows about the condition." (Footnote omitted.)) 4 Actual knowledge distinguishes RCW 4.24.210 from common law liability for dangerous conditions about which the landowner knows or should know. Morgan v. United States, 709 F.2d 580, 583 (9th Cir.1983). "Known" in RCW 4.24.210 refers to the landowner's mental state. Morgan, at 583. A landowner must know of the condition and must know it is dangerous and latent. Tabak, 73 Wash.App. at 696, 870 P.2d 1014; Gaeta, 54 Wash.App. at 609, 774 P.2d 1255.

Mr. Ertl presented no evidence the State actually knew the pothole was obscured by shadows at times. In fact, the only other direct evidence in this record is that of Ms. Weisenburger, who saw the pothole just prior to Mr. Ertl's accident. Without a prima facie showing of actual knowledge, there is no genuine issue of fact and the trial court properly granted summary judgment for the State. Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 112 Wash.2d 216, 225-27, 770 P.2d 182 (1989); Ames v. Fircrest, 71 Wash.App. 284, 289-90, 857 P.2d 1083 (1993).

Mr. Ertl also contends the trial court abused its discretion in striking portions of his declaration and that of his expert, Mr. Lally. The disputed portions of both affidavits pertain to the ability of Mr. Ertl or someone similarly situated to see and appreciate the condition created by the pothole, the shadows and the surrounding pavement. Because of our disposition of the case, it is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Degel v. Majestic Mobile Manor, Inc., 62312-1
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 18, 1996
    ...... Tincani, 124 Wash.2d at 128, 875 P.2d 621; Ertl v. Parks & Recreation Comm'n, 76 Wash.App. 110, 113, 882 P.2d 1185 (1994), ......
  • Jewels v. City of Bellingham, 90319–1.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • June 11, 2015
    ...one another.3 Cultee v. City of Tacoma, 95 Wash.App. 505, 977 P.2d 15 (1999) ; Ertl v. Parks & Recreation Comm'n, 76 Wash.App. 110, 882 P.2d 1185 (1994) ; Tabak v. State, 73 Wash.App. 691, 870 P.2d 1014 (1994).¶ 13 Van Dinter 's reasoning applies equally in this case. Here, the Court of App......
  • Cultee v. City of Tacoma, 23536-6-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • May 7, 1999
    ...... because the Nalley Ranch was not open to the public for outdoor recreation; and (2) even if the statute did apply, the City was liable because the ... See, e.g., Ertl v. Parks & Recreation Comm'n, 76 Wash.App. 110, 115, 882 P.2d 1185 (1994). ......
  • Jewels v. City of Bellingham, 69358–1–I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • April 21, 2014
    ...612, 616, 30 P.3d 460 (2001). 4.Davis, 144 Wash.2d at 616, 30 P.3d 460. 5.Ertl v. Parks & Recreation Comm'n, 76 Wash.App. 110, 113, 882 P.2d 1185 (1994); Nauroth v. Spokane County, 121 Wash.App. 389, 392, 88 P.3d 996 (2004). 6.Van Dinter v. City of Kennewick, 64 Wash.App. 930, 934–35, 827 P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT