Soto v. United States
748 F. Supp. 727, 1990 WL 161987, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14335 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act and California law, the government's failure to warn or guard against a known danger in a heavily used recreational area constitutes willful misconduct when it has actual or constructive knowledge of the peril and the high probability of injury, and consciously fails to act, thereby negating the immunity typically granted by a state's recreational use statute.
Facts:
- On August 13, 1983, plaintiff visited the Stoneyvale Picnic Ground area of the Angeles National Forest, which is adjacent to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area.
- The area contained two natural pools that were heavily used for swimming and diving by hundreds of visitors every summer weekend.
- The Forest Service formally classified the pool area as 'dispersed' or undeveloped, meaning it was to be left in its natural state without improvements or signs.
- Despite its classification, the area was a de facto developed site, featuring a large parking lot, picnic area, and nearby housing, and Forest Service personnel were fully aware of the intense public use for swimming and diving.
- Forest Service personnel knew the pools were dangerous for diving, as evidenced by a recent drowning at the site and an employee's ignored suggestion to post a warning sign.
- Plaintiff judged the Stoneyvale pool to be deep enough for diving after a cursory check.
- On his second dive from a rock ledge into the murky water, plaintiff's head struck the bottom of the pool, resulting in him becoming an incomplete quadriplegic.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an action against the United States in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The case was tried to the court without a jury.
- The trial was bifurcated, with the court first deciding the issue of liability only, deferring the issue of damages.
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 U.S. Forest Service's failure to warn or guard against the dangers of diving in a heavily used swimming hole in a national forest constitute willful misconduct, thereby overcoming the immunity granted by California's recreational use statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Tashima, J.
Yes. The government's failure to warn or guard against the dangers of diving constitutes willful misconduct, which is an exception to the immunity provided by California's recreational use statute. The discretionary function exception under the FTCA does not apply because the failure to warn of a specific, known hazard at an operational level is not a protected policy decision. The government cannot hide behind a formal 'dispersed' classification when the site was, in reality, a de facto developed area due to intense public use. The government's conduct meets the three-part test for willful misconduct because it had (1) actual and constructive knowledge of the peril of diving, (2) knowledge that injury was a probable result due to the heavy use, and (3) made a conscious and callous decision not to act by failing to post warnings or enforce a no-swimming rule. However, the plaintiff's own negligence in diving headfirst into a murky pool of unknown depth contributed to his injury, so fault is apportioned 75% to the defendant and 25% to the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limits of both the discretionary function exception under the FTCA and state recreational use immunity statutes. It establishes that a government agency cannot rely on a formal land classification ('undeveloped') to avoid liability when the reality of public use makes an area a de facto developed recreational site. The ruling emphasizes that when an agency is aware of a specific danger and the high probability of injury, a conscious failure to take minimal safety precautions like posting a sign can rise to the level of 'willful misconduct.' This precedent puts public land managers on notice, especially for lands near urban centers, that they cannot ignore foreseeable dangers arising from intense public use, even in areas officially designated as 'natural' or 'unimproved'.
