BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session AB 634 (Harkey) As Amended January 7, 2010 Hearing Date: June 10, 2010 Fiscal: No Urgency: No BCP:jd SUBJECT Hazardous Recreational Activities: SCUBA diving DESCRIPTION This bill would add self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) diving to the list of hazardous recreational activities and, as a result, provide a qualified immunity for public entities and public employees from damages for injuries sustained by those divers on public property. BACKGROUND Historically, the assumption of risk doctrine prevented individuals from recovering for injuries caused when they engaged in hazardous recreational activities. The rationale for this qualified immunity was that these individuals recognized the risk inherent in the activity, and voluntarily chose to accept that risk when engaging in that activity. In 1983, California codified a qualified immunity for public entities and employees for injuries suffered by individuals engaged in hazardous recreational activities on public property. The included activities, such as rock climbing, sky diving, and sport parachuting, all pose a substantial risk of injury to a participant or spectator. The list of qualifying "hazardous recreational activities" was last amended by AB 700 (Cuneen, Chapter 597, Statutes of 1995) to include mountain biking and paragliding. Prior legislation also attempted to add skateboarding to the list of hazardous recreational activities, but after concerns arose about its inclusion, skateboarding was added to a separate section that defines it as a hazardous (more) AB 634 (Harkey) Page 2 of ? recreational activity when occurring in a public skateboard park, but only if specified safety requirements and age restrictions are enforced by the public entity. Similar to the above legislation, this bill seeks to add self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) diving to the list of "hazardous recreational activities" in order to address liability concerns of public entities. Unlike other previously proposed additions, there is no opposition to this proposed inclusion. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law shields public entities and public employees from liability to any person participating in a hazardous recreational activity, including voluntary spectators who recognized the substantial risk of injury due to the activity. (Gov. Code Sec. 831.7.) Existing law provides that the above provision does not limit liability that would otherwise exist for, among other things: (1) failure to warn of a known dangerous condition; (2) damage or injury suffered in any case where permission to participate in the activity was granted for a fee, as specified; (3) negligent failure of the public entity or employee to properly construct or maintain in good repair any structure, recreational equipment or machinery, or substantial work of improvement; (4) reckless or gross negligence promotion of participation in or observance of a hazardous recreational activity; and (5) gross negligence that is the proximate case of the injury. (Gov. Code Sec. 831.7.) Existing law defines "hazardous recreational activity" as a recreational activity conducted on the property of a public entity that creates a substantial risk of injury to a participant or spectator. Specific codified hazardous recreational activities include hang gliding, kayaking, motorized vehicle racing, pistol and rifle shooting, rock climbing, racketeering, spelunking, sky diving, sport parachuting, and paragliding. (Gov. Code Sec. 831.7.) This bill would add "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) diving" to the list of specific codified activities that constitute a "hazardous recreational activity." COMMENT AB 634 (Harkey) Page 3 of ? 1. Stated need for the bill According to California Ship to Reefs (CSTR), sponsor: AB 634 is solely intended to protect state and local governments from liability associated with SCUBA diving. SCUBA diving is an inherently dangerous activity, acknowledged when divers routinely sign waivers upon boarding dive charter boats. Hazards include out-of-air emergencies, decompression illness (the bends), nitrogen narcosis (rapture of the deep) and oxygen toxicity. Such waivers generally include the state and local government. Diving on and penetration of structures such as sunken ships is even more hazardous, requiring special training and equipment beyond that for normal SCUBA. SCUBA diving requires training and certification at every level. There are at least 3 ship-based artificial reefs in California waters or under State control on which diving and penetrations are being made. Unfortunately, there are a small number of divers who will dive a ship or structure on their own and not be properly trained, experienced or equipped, who trigger the need for AB 634. There is direct evidence that divers are accessing artificial reefs from private boats without signing waivers. The author additionally notes that the intent of AB 634 is to protect state and local governments from liability associated with SCUBA diving in their waters, particularly on ship-based artificial reefs. 2. Risks associated with SCUBA diving AB 634 would add SCUBA diving to the codified list of "hazardous recreational activities," thus conferring a qualified immunity on public entities and employees for injuries suffered by those who participate in SCUBA diving. From a practical standpoint, this qualified immunity would be triggered when a participant was injured and the State of California or local government would have otherwise been found to have some liability for the injury. (Government Code Section 831.7 defines hazardous recreational activity as, among other things, recreational activity conducted on property of a public entity.) Although the bill would apply to SCUBA diving generally, the sponsor and proponent's main concern appears to be injuries associated with AB 634 (Harkey) Page 4 of ? diving in artificial reefs that have been created on land owned by the state and local governments. (See Comment 3.) While diving in those reefs may pose additional dangers, as discussed below, SCUBA diving as a general activity does appear to meet the criteria for inclusion as a "hazardous recreational activity." Under existing law, a hazardous recreational activity is defined as a recreational activity that creates a substantial risk of injury to a participant or spectator. That definition is augmented to specifically include various activities, such as downhill skiing, motorized vehicle racing, spelunking, sports surfing, white water rafting, and windsurfing. Thus, the main policy question posed by AB 634 is whether SCUBA diving poses a significant risk that is comparable to other activities already codified. If so, the addition of SCUBA to the definition would confer a qualified immunity on public entities and public employees for injuries associated with that activity. The sponsor asserts that SCUBA diving is an inherently dangerous activity that puts participants at the risk of decompression illness, nitrogen narcosis, and oxygen toxicity. Those risks have been confirmed by several studies, including a study that found recreational diving to be between 39 and 62 times riskier than driving a car and that concluded that diving should not be considered a safe activity. (Is Recreational Diving Safe? Ikeda, T; Ashida, H, 2000.) The Northern California Oceans Foundation, in support, further asserts that "SCUBA diving is recognized as an inherently dangerous activity and divers are accustomed to signing liability waivers for every phase of diving . . . Divers are [also] taught from their very first training session that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety." Given the significant risks associated with SCUBA diving - ranging from drowning and hypoxia to decompression sickness - that activity appears at least as risky (if not riskier due to being in an underwater environment) than existing codified activities such as kayaking, boating, or surfing. As discussed in Comment 3, that risk may arguably be significant enough for a public entity or employee to already limit their SCUBA liability based upon the "assumption of the risk doctrine" or the current codified definition of "hazardous recreational activity." The proposed codification of SCUBA as a "hazardous recreational activity" serves to remove any ambiguity that may be present regarding liability for injuries sustained by SCUBA divers on public property. AB 634 (Harkey) Page 5 of ? 3. Current liability for public entities and public employees Generally, every individual has a duty to exercise ordinary care; failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances results in liability. (Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456, 472; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112.) Primary assumption of the risk limits a defendant's liability when the inherent risks of a sport cannot be eliminated without destroying the sport itself. (Record v. Reason (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 472, 480.) These sports include those "done for enjoyment or thrill, requir[ing] physical exertion as well as elements of skill, and involv[ing] a challenge containing a potential risk of injury." (Id. at 482.) Even when assumption of the risk applies, "defendants generally do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." (Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 316.) Given that SCUBA diving in itself is inherently risky, and that there is no way to fully eliminate the risks associated with being in an underwater environment while breathing compressed gas - an individual injured while SCUBA diving may likely be found to have assumed the risk of diving. Additionally, if going on a commercial dive boat, individuals going SCUBA diving are likely to have signed a liability waiver stating that they understand and assume the risks associated with the activity. In addition to potential defenses based upon assumption of the risk, SCUBA diving may arguably already fall under the definition of "hazardous recreational activity" as that definition includes any recreational activity conducted on property of a public entity that creates a substantial risk of injury to a participant or a spectator. Provided that the public entity could prove that SCUBA diving posed a substantial risk of injury, that public entity may already not be liable for injuries occurring on their "property." Regarding existing protections from liability, the City of Monterey, in support, states that "[t]he only opinions on the issue of liability for divers on artificial reefs on public lands are those of city attorneys who are in disagreement as to whether there is or is not exposure on the part of the public entity on whose property a reef is placed." This bill would resolve those questions about legal exposure by providing a clear qualified immunity for public entities and their employees for SCUBA related injuries. AB 634 (Harkey) Page 6 of ? 4. Construction of artificial reefs California Ships to Reefs, Inc. (CSTR), sponsor, is a non-profit public benefit corporation that is seeking to establish a series of artificial reefs, primarily decommissioned ships, along the California coast. CSTR asserts that those reefs "can bring [the sustainable] economic benefits of SCUBA diving and fishing tourism to California's ports, ravaged by recent fishing collapses." As an example, CSTR cites the reefing of the HMCS Yukon off of San Diego in 2000 - that reefing cost $1.2 million and generates $4.5 million annually in diver related income. Regarding the process for "reefing" decommissioned ships, CSTR states: Ships will be thoroughly cleaned of toxics and "diverized" before reefing by removal of all wire and overhead items that might collapse and create an entanglement hazard. Hatches will be removed or welded open, bulkheads removed to open up interior spaces. Numerous holes will be cut into the vessel for ingress and egress. A diver will be able to see daylight, the way out, from anywhere in the ship. Areas deemed too unsafe will be closed off and hatches welded shut or otherwise secured. As far as future projects, the County of Orange, in support, states that "[l]ocally there are two potential programs involving [CSTR] that may utilize the Harbor if space becomes available as a base of operation and would most likely evolve to commercial SCUBA diving activity launching from the Harbor's docks. The first deals with pier pilings currently part of the Dana Point Harbor (DPH) dock structure. The planned renovation of the DPH dock system will recycle the pilings in an approved off shore location to be utilized as an artificial reef to support marine plant and fish populations in the area. The second involves reefing a retired Department of Defense ship along the coastline, serving as a dive destination." It should be noted that the State Lands Commission (SLC) holds "sovereign land" in trust for the people of the State of California, and that the land generally includes submerged lands along the State's coastline and offshore islands from the mean high tide line to three nautical miles offshore. Regarding the need for this bill, CSTR's Web site states that the SLC has "no problem with CSTR's activities, assuming all permits and required approvals are obtained, as long as there is no AB 634 (Harkey) Page 7 of ? additional liability put upon the State." CSTR's Web site further asserts that: [i]t will be very much more difficult, if not impossible, to get the approval of the State Lands Commission for leases for ship-based artificial reefs without this bill. They have indicated that they want absolutely no additional real or apparent exposure of the State to any liability issues. This is also the reason they want CSTR to own the reefs and lease the sea bottom from them. CSTR expects that the jurisdictions for the few sites on granted lands (where a city, county or harbor district "owns" the sea bottom) will follow the State's lead. Support : City of Dana Point; City of Monterey; City of Morro Bay; County of Orange Board of Supervisors; Civil Justice Association of California; Diving Unlimited International, Inc.; Northern California Oceans Foundation; two individuals Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : California Ships to Reefs, Inc. Related Pending Legislation : AB 874 (Saldana), would remove the requirement in current law that city and county owned or operated skateboard parks require users to wear elbow pads and knee pads to enhance safety while retaining the requirement that skateboarders wear safety helmets. This bill is currently in this Committee. Prior Legislation : None Known Prior Vote : Assembly Judiciary (Ayes 9, Noes 0) Assembly Floor (Ayes 71, Noes 0) ************** AB 634 (Harkey) Page 8 of ?