In Hoffmann v. Young, the Supreme Court today holds that a plaintiff did not establish she had received the type of invitation to the defendants’ property that would have negated a statutory immunity for landowners from liability to persons injured during recreational activities. The plaintiff was invited by the defendants’ son to go motorcycle riding on the property. Horvitz & Levy briefed and argued the case for the defendant.
The court’s opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan says that, even though the statute provides the immunity doesn’t apply to a person who is “expressly invited . . . to come upon the premises by the landowner” (emphasis added), an invitation by a landowner’s agent could suffice. But, the court finds, “an agency relationship can only be created if a landowner delegated the authority to a nonlandowner to invite guests on the landowner’s behalf. Mere implied permission to invite friends over would not suffice.” It was this specific delegated authority that the court concludes the plaintiff had failed to prove.
All is not lost for the plaintiff yet, however. The court remands the case for the Court of Appeal to decide other issues relating to the immunity.
Justice Leondra Kruger, who does not sign the court’s opinion, writes a 21-page concurrence. Joining Justice Kruger are Justices Goodwin Liu, who does sign the court’s opinion, and Joshua Groban, who doesn’t. Justice Kruger stresses the narrowness of the case, which she says is “insufficient to resolve the broader issue at stake: whether the recreational use immunity law bars compensation for household guests who are injured because of a property owner’s carelessness.” She also suggests that a future opinion to address the issue would be unnecessary if the Legislature revises the statute, which was first enacted in 1963. The statute, she writes, was “written for a different time, and the Legislature may wish to update it for ours.”
The court reverses a divided published opinion by the Second District, Division Six, Court of Appeal. It also disapproves a 1993 Division Six opinion, a 2001 opinion by the First District, Division Three, and a 2016 Third District opinion.
