Lockner v. Pierce Cnty.
| Decision Date | 09 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 48659-8-II,48659-8-II |
| Citation | 198 Wash.App. 907,396 P.3d 389 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Margie LOCKNER, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; and Blair Smith, individually, and as an employee to Pierce County, Respondents. |
198 Wash.App. 907
396 P.3d 389
Margie LOCKNER, Appellant,
v.
PIERCE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; and Blair Smith, individually, and as an employee to Pierce County, Respondents.
No. 48659-8-II
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.
May 9, 2017
Casey Matthew Arbenz, The Hester Law Group Inc. PS, 1008 Yakima, Ste. 302, Tacoma, WA, 98405-4850, for Appellant.
Sean-Michael V. Davis, Pierce County Prosecutor's Office, 955 Tacoma Ave. S., Ste. 301, Tacoma, WA, 98402-2160, for Respondents.
Lee, J.
¶1 Margie Lockner appeals the superior court's summary judgment dismissal of her claims based on the recreational immunity statute, RCW 4.24.210. Lockner argues that the superior court improperly applied the recreational immunity statute because (1) she provided evidence that the place of her injury was used for transportation purposes and (2)
she brought a negligence claim rather than a premises liability claim. This appeal requires us to determine whether Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co.1 limits recreational immunity to land opened solely for recreational purposes or whether the immunity extends to those lands serving multiple purposes.
¶2 We hold that summary judgment was improper because Camicia limited recreational immunity to land opened to the public solely for recreational purposes and issues of material fact remain as to whether the area where Lockner was hurt was opened to the public solely for the purpose of recreational use. We also hold that the plain language of availability of RCW 4.24.210 extends to negligence actions. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS
¶3 Lockner and her niece were riding their bicycles on the Foothills Trail in Pierce County. Lockner was riding behind her niece as they approached a riding lawn mower from the rear. The lawn mower, operated by a Pierce County Parks and Recreation employee, was mowing grass on the right side of the trail, moving in the same direction as Lockner and her niece. Lockner's niece rode past the lawn mower, and Lockner followed, attempting to pass with the lawn mower on her right. Lockner raised her left hand from the handle bars to shield her eyes from debris in the air from the lawn mower. She "quickly tried to veer to the left to get off the trail and that's when I clipped [Lockner's niece's] bike." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 76 (Deposition of Lockner). Lockner fell and was hurt.
¶4 The County's website describes the Foothills Trail as:
The Foothills Trail sits atop a historic railroad bed and snakes through the river valley southeast of Tacoma. This 25-mile-long trail is a popular commuter route and recreational destination for bicyclists, while hikers enjoy shorter, more manageable segments of the trail. One of the most scenic sections for the unobstructed views of nearby Mt. Rainier begins in Orting and follows the Carbon River upstream through farmland and forest.
The Foothills Trail is a 12-foot wide non-motorized asphalt trail/linear park suitable for bicycles, walking, in-line skates and wheel chairs. It also has a soft shoulder path for equestrians.
CP at 62 (emphasis added).
¶5 The County produced a "Pierce County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan," which included a "Regional Trails Plan" that stated its vision as:
The Pierce County Regional Trails System will be an accessible and seamless trails network used by people of all ages and abilities for recreation and transportation . Pierce County trails will provide users with the opportunity to experience recreation , solitude or companionship, and provide a practical transportation option . It will offer connections to major developed areas and attractions within the County, provide opportunities for appreciation of nature, and connect the County to the greater region.
CP at 59, 65-66 (emphasis added).
¶6 Lockner filed suit against the County and the employee operating the lawn mower. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing that RCW 4.24.210 immunized the County from Lockner's claims. In support of the motion, the County filed the declaration of its Superintendent of Parks, which stated that the Foothills Trail "is open to the public for recreation between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.," and the Foothills Trail "is not a transportation corridor." CP at 103. The superior court agreed with the County and dismissed Lockner's suit. Lockner appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶7 Lockner argues that the superior court erred in dismissing her case against the County on summary judgment because (1) issues of material fact exist as to the trail's use for transportation purposes and (2) the recreational immunity statute applies only to claims for premises liability, not to her claims for negligence. We hold that summary judgment
was improper because issues of material
fact remain as to whether the Foothills Trail was opened to the public solely for the purpose of recreational use. We also hold Lockner's second argument fails.
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8 "Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). We review a grant of summary judgment de novo." Camicia , 179 Wash.2d at 693, 317 P.3d 987.
¶9 In reviewing appeals from summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 687-88, 317 P.3d 987. In this case, that party is Lockner.
¶10 Recreational immunity is an affirmative defense. Id. at 693, 317 P.3d 987. Therefore, the burden to establish its application is on the party claiming its protection. Id . In this case, that party is the County.
B. AVAILABILITY OF RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY
¶11 Lockner argues that material facts exist to show that the Foothills Trail is not used solely for recreational purposes. Lockner asserts that summary judgment is not proper in this case because our Supreme Court in Camicia held that where the land is held open for mixed-use—such as for both recreation and transportation—then the recreational immunity statute is not available to the landowner. We agree.
¶12 RCW 4.24.210 is the recreational immunity statute. Its purpose
is 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 and toward persons who may be injured or otherwise damaged by the acts or omissions of persons entering thereon.
RCW 4.24.200. In short, the recreational immunity statute was enacted to encourage landowners to allow public use of
their land for outdoor recreation by providing the landowners with immunity from most injuries that might be sustained through the public's use. RCW 4.24.200 ; LAWS OF 1967, ch. 216 § 2.2 The recreational immunity statute provides, in pertinent part:
[A]ny public or private landowners ... who allow members of the public to use [the land] for the purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to, ... bicycling, ... without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users.
RCW 4.24.210(1). "Thus, ‘to be immune under RCW 4.24.210(1) the landowner must establish that the [land in question] (1) was open to members of the public (2) for recreational purposes and [that] (3) no fee of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. King Cnty.
...County's recreational use immunity defense based on the recreational use statute and this court's decision in Lockner v. Pierce County , 198 Wash. App. 907, 396 P.3d 389 (2017), rev'd , 190 Wash.2d 526, 415 P.3d 246 (2018). The County opposed Schwartz's motion, and the court denied it.¶29 A......
-
Lockner v. Pierce Cnty.
...there was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the trail was open "solely" for recreational use. Lockner v. Pierce County , 198 Wash. App. 907, 908, 396 P.3d 389 (2017) (citing Camicia , 179 Wash.2d at 687, 317 P.3d 987 ). The County sought review. Lockner, in turn, asked this co......