James R. Termini v. United States
92 Daily Journal DAR 6180, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3950, 963 F.2d 1264 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's conduct constitutes a "willful or malicious failure to guard or warn" under California's Recreational Use Statute, thereby negating landowner immunity, when the landowner creates a deceptive, man-made hazard that provides no margin for human or mechanical error and fails to provide any warning of the peril.
Facts:
- James Termini drove his 1967 Jeep on a single-lane, unpaved dirt road in the Angeles National Forest, which was built and maintained by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
- Termini encountered a fork in the road where both branches appeared identical and were bladed to the same degree.
- No signs were present to indicate that one fork was a through road and the other was a dead-end spur.
- Termini took the left fork, which was a spur that ended abruptly at a steep cliff.
- The cliff was not visible until a driver had crested a hill and was approximately 40 feet from the edge.
- When Termini saw the cliff, he applied his brakes, but they failed.
- The Jeep plunged over the cliff, causing Termini to suffer injuries that rendered him a paraplegic.
Procedural Posture:
- James Termini sued the United States in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The district court conducted a bench trial.
- The district court found that California's Recreational Use Statute barred Termini's claim and entered a decision in favor of the United States.
- Termini, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 the United States Forest Service's conduct in building and maintaining a road that is indistinguishable from a through road but ends at an unmarked cliff constitute a 'willful or malicious failure to guard or warn' under California's Recreational Use Statute, thereby removing the government's immunity from liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Fletcher, J.
Yes. The United States Forest Service's conduct constituted a willful and malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. California law provides a three-part test for willful misconduct: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril; (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is a probable, not merely possible, result; and (3) a conscious failure to act to avoid the peril. The USFS met all three elements. First, the USFS had actual knowledge of the peril, as it built and maintained the road ending at a cliff, which is an obvious danger. Second, a reasonable person would have recognized the probability of injury because the spur was deceptively similar to the main road, the cliff was hidden until the last moment, and the design left no margin for any human, mechanical, or natural error. The lack of prior accidents is not dispositive. The USFS also violated its own safety manual, which recommended warning signs for non-obvious hazards. Third, the USFS consciously failed to act, as it could have easily installed a sign or otherwise guarded against the danger. Therefore, the immunity provided by California’s Recreational Use Statute does not apply.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'willful and malicious' conduct exception to recreational use immunity statutes, particularly as applied to government entities under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court establishes that creating a deceptive, trap-like condition with no margin for error elevates a landowner's conduct from mere negligence to willful misconduct. The ruling diminishes the weight of factors like low traffic volume or a lack of prior accidents when the created hazard is objectively severe and a reasonable person would foresee probable injury. This precedent strengthens the position of plaintiffs injured by man-made, unmarked hazards on recreational land by focusing the legal inquiry on the nature of the danger itself, rather than historical accident data.
