Rucker v. WINCAL, Inc. (Feb. 4, 2022, B307964)
As part of her training for a half-marathon, plaintiff was jogging on defendant’s property when she encountered a homeless encampment blocking her path, entered the bicycle lane to avoid it, and was stuck and injured by a car. Plaintiff sued the property owner for negligence and premises liability. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty of care because she was engaged in recreational use of the property within the meaning of Civil Code section 846. Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Civil Code section 846 provides immunity to property owners who allow others to use their land for recreational purposes. The Court of Appeal held that jogging for “pleasure or exercise” meets the statutory definition of recreational activity. Thus, the court concluded, jogging to train for a half-marathon has a “recreational purpose” triggering immunity. “She was not, for instance, jogging because she was late for work, an activity that would not fall within the statutory definition of ‘recreational purpose.’ ”
