(a)An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.
(b)A “recreational purpose,” as used in this section, includes activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, spelunking, sport parachuting, riding, including animal riding, snowmobiling, and all other types of vehicular riding, rock collecting, sightseeing, picnicking, nature study, nature contacting, recreational gardening, gleaning, hang gliding, private noncommercial aviation activities, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or scientific sites.
(c)An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, who gives permission to another for entry or use for the above purpose upon the premises does not thereby do any of the following:
(1)Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for that purpose.
(2)Constitute the person to whom permission has been granted the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed.
(3)Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission has been granted except as provided in this section.
(d)This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists for any of the following:
(1)Willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.
(2)Injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said
landowner by the state, or where consideration has been received from others for the same purpose.
(3)Any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner.
(e)This section does not create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to person or property.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
89
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
Klein v. United States, 235 P.3d 42 (Cal. 2010).
Klein v. United States, 235 P.3d 42 (Cal. 2010).
· cites it 12× “Statutory Language (3) Civil Code section 846, in its first paragraph, defines the scope of the immunity granted to California landowners, in these words: "An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes no duty of care to…”
Avila v. Citrus Cmty. Coll. Dist., 131 P.3d 383 (Cal. 2006).
· cites it 4× “" Civil Code section 846 leaves in place whatever common law premises liability would exist "(a) for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case where permission to enter for the…”
Kimberly Ann Sallee v. Matthew R. Stewart, 827 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 6× “§ 34–19–101(a)(iii) (2011); see also Cal. Civil Code § 846 (West 2007). A number of courts have pointed to “includes, but is not limited to” language to support expansive interpretations of recreational use statutes.”
Klein v. United States, 537 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 8× “Certified Question We certify to the California Supreme Court the following question of state law that is now before us: Does California Civil Code § 846, California’s recreational land use statute, immunize a landowner from liability for acts of vehicular negligence committed…”
Wang v. Nibbelink, 4 Cal. App. 5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “To encourage landowners to allow public use of the land for recreational purposes, Civil Code section 846 shields landowners from liability “for any injury to person or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission has been granted,” subject to statutory exceptions.”
Lewis v. Superior Court, 970 P.2d 872 (Cal. 1999).
· cites it 2× “owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose.... [¶] A `recreational purpose,' as used in this section, includes such activities as .”
Verdugo v. Target Corp., 327 P.3d 774 (Cal. 2014).
· cites it 2× “, Civ. Code, § 846 [“[A landowner] owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purpose,…”
Von Tagen v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 256 (N.D. Cal. 1983).
· cites it 6× “Cal.Civ.Code § 846. The government contends that because section 846 immunizes real property owners from liability in negligence for injuries to persons who use property for recreational purposes, and because plaintiff cannot establish that he is within an exception to the…”
Hannon v. United States, 801 F. Supp. 323 (E.D. Cal. 1992).
· cites it 8× “Defendant United States seeks summary judgment on three grounds: 1) recreational use immunity under California Civil Code § 846; 2) defendant owes no duty to protect plaintiff against open and obvious conditions and 3) Plaintiffs recklessness proximately caused his injury.”
Ornelas v. Randolph, 847 P.2d 560 (Cal. 1993).
· cites it 2× “" (Civ. Code, § 846, italics added.) Although a list of examples follows this general language, the phrase "recreational purpose" is not limited to the listed activities, but "includes" them.”
Cal. Civil Code § 846(a): 2 cases
Cal. Civil Code § 846(b): 1 case
Cal. Civil Code § 846(c): 2 cases
Hannon v. United States, 801 F. Supp. 323 (E.D. Cal. 1992).
“Defendant United States seeks summary judgment on three grounds: 1) recreational use immunity under California Civil Code § 846; 2) defendant owes no duty to protect plaintiff against open and obvious conditions and 3) Plaintiffs recklessness proximately caused his injury.”
Cal. Civil Code § 846(d): 1 case
Cal. Civil Code § 846(d)(1): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.