Hannon v. United States
1992 WL 205590, 801 F. Supp. 323, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19260 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is treated as a private landowner and is thus entitled to immunity under California's recreational use statute (Cal. Civ. Code § 846) from suits by individuals injured while using federal land for recreational purposes, unless the government's conduct was willful or malicious, consideration was paid for entry, or the user was expressly invited.
Facts:
- Marc Hannon, a 22-year-old adult, had lived near the Hot Creek Geothermal Area in Inyo National Forest for almost five years and had visited it multiple times.
- Hannon knew prior to his visit that the area contained extremely hot, scalding water and had seen warning signs on previous occasions.
- On May 7, 1989, Hannon visited the Hot Creek Area with his brother and two dogs for recreational purposes and did not pay any fee to enter the National Forest or the specific area.
- The area was equipped with fences around the hot pools and numerous signs warning of dangers, including one Hannon saw titled “Dangers of Hot Creek” and others that read “DANGER SCALDING WATER KEEP OUT.”
- While there, one of Hannon's dogs went around a fence and approached the creek.
- Hearing his dog's cries, and consciously aware that the water was scalding, Hannon jumped over the fence to attempt a rescue.
- During the rescue attempt, the dog pulled Hannon into the scalding water, causing him serious personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Marc Hannon filed a lawsuit against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking recovery for personal injuries under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The United States filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from liability under California's recreational use statute.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's recreational use immunity statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 846, shield the United States from liability for injuries sustained by a recreational user in a national forest when the user did not pay an entry fee, was aware of the dangers, and the government had posted warning signs and erected fences?
Opinions:
Majority - Wanger, District Judge
Yes. California's recreational use immunity statute shields the United States from liability because the government is treated as a private landowner under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the plaintiff failed to establish that any of the statutory exceptions to immunity apply. The court reasoned that under the FTCA, the government's liability is determined as if it were a private individual, making California's recreational use statute (§ 846) directly applicable. The court then analyzed and rejected the three statutory exceptions to immunity. First, no consideration was paid, as Hannon entered for free, and fees charged for separate campgrounds elsewhere in the vast national forest do not negate immunity for the specific, free-to-use area where the injury occurred. Second, the government's conduct was not willful or malicious; its extensive efforts to fence the area and post numerous, explicit warning signs demonstrated a conscious effort to warn the public, not a conscious failure to act, which is required for this exception. Finally, providing public facilities and promotional literature constitutes a general permission for public use, not a specific, express invitation that would remove the statutory protection.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad scope of recreational use immunity statutes and confirms their application to the federal government as if it were a private landowner. It clarifies that the exceptions to immunity are narrowly construed, particularly setting a high bar for what constitutes 'willful or malicious' conduct; extensive warnings and safety measures will likely defeat such claims even if they are not perfectly effective. The ruling also establishes that charging fees in one portion of a large public property does not waive immunity for separate, free-to-use areas within the same property, limiting plaintiffs' ability to use the 'consideration' exception. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence claims for injuries sustained on public recreational lands where no fee is charged.
