Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Farnham v. City of L.A.

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two

December 23, 1998, Decided

No. B117963.

Opinion

 [*1098]  [**721]   NOTT, J. 

Daniel R. Farnham appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent City of Los Angeles (City) following the grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm for the reason that the provisions of Government Code section 831.4 provide complete immunity against appellant's suit.

 [*1099]  FACTS

Sepulveda Basin Bikeway (the Bikeway) is a class I bikeway as defined by Streets and Highways Code section 890.4, subdivision (a). 1 The Bikeway is paved [***2]  and runs along the perimeter of Balboa Park in the City.

On April 11, 1995, during [***3]  daylight hours between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m., appellant and a companion were riding separate bicycles on the Bikeway. A portion of the outer pavement gave way as appellant crossed it, causing him to be thrown into an adjacent ditch. He alleges that as a result of the accident, he suffered serious head and neck injuries.

After giving appellant one opportunity to amend his complaint for negligence and creation of a dangerous condition, the trial court granted the City's motion for judgment on the pleadings under Government Code section 831.4. 2 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

CONTENTIONS

 CA(1)(1) In Carroll v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 606 [70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 504], we held that the paved South Bay Bicycle Path qualified as a "trail" under the governmental immunity provisions of section 831.4. The South Bay Bicycle Path is also a class I bikeway, with only [***4]  some segments being subject to either contiguous or cross-vehicular traffic.

 [**722]  Appellant contends that section 831.4 does not apply to the facts of this case because (1) the Bikeway involved here is not a "trail," but is part of the public streets and highways; (2) the Bikeway was paved; and (3) Carroll was wrongly decided.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

68 Cal. App. 4th 1097 *; 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 720 **; 1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 1071 ***; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9341; 98 Daily Journal DAR 12991

DANIEL R. FARNHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.

Subsequent History:  [***1]  Review Denied April 14, 1999, Reported at: 1999 Cal. LEXIS 2253.

Prior History: APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Super. Ct. No. LC035832. Michael J. Farrell and Bert Glennon, Jr., Judges.

Disposition: The judgment is affirmed.

CORE TERMS

trail, subdivision, bikeway, paved, highway, immunity, easement, streets and highways, public street, bicycle path, bicycle, unpaved road, provide access, public entity, recreational, unimproved, purposes, qualify, surface, riding, street, users

Governments, State & Territorial Governments, Property, Transportation Law, Private Vehicles, Bicycles, Claims By & Against, Real Property Law, Water Rights, Nonconsumptive Uses, Fishing, Limited Use Rights, Easements, Public Easements