Friday, September 5, 2003
Walking for Exercise a Form of Recreation, C.A. Holds
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Walking for exercise is a form of “recreation,” the Court of Appeal held yesterday, finding that the owner of a track was entitled to recreational-use immunity in an action by a woman who was injured while perambulating.
The unpublished opinion by Justice Orville Armstrong of this district’s Div. Five affirms a summary judgment in favor of defendant University of La Verne granted by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Karl Jaeger. He relied on the immunity conferred by Civil Code section 846 on owners of real property used “for any recreational purpose.”
Plaintiff Kathleen Brown-Alkire argued that walking is not such a purpose, and was not a par with examples of recreational uses-such as “fishing,” “spelunking,” and “rock collecting”-mentioned in the statute.
Rejecting the contention, Armstrong wrote:
“[T]he determinative factor under the statute is whether the activity engaged in serves a recreational purpose. Walking for exercise is a recreational activity every bit as much as is playing on farm equipment, an activity not listed in the statute. Consequently, the trial court properly determined that section 846 shields the University from liability for plaintiff’s injury.”
Westminister attorney William Waldron of Palitz & Associates represented Brown-Alkire and Alan R. Zuckerman and Allison K. Meshekow of the downtown Los Angeles law firm of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith acted for the university.
The case is Brown-Alkire v. University of La Verne, B162191.
Copyright 2003, Metropolitan News Company