BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1072|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1072
Author: Fuller (R)
Amended: 4/29/14
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 4/22/14
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning, Vidak
SUBJECT : Real property: aviation activities
SOURCE : The Recreational Aviation Foundation
DIGEST : This bill adds private noncommercial aviation
activities to the codified list of recreational purposes related
to estates or interests in real property.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the
result of his/her willful acts, but also for an injury to
another caused by his/her lack of ordinary care or skill in
the management of his/her property or person, except so far
as the latter has, willfully or from lack of ordinary care,
brought the injury upon himself/herself.
2. Provides that an owner of any estate or any other interest
in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, owes
no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by
CONTINUED
SB 1072
Page
2
others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of
hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on
such premises to persons entering for such a recreational
purpose, except as provided.
3. Specifies that an owner who gives permission to another for
entry or use for the above purpose upon the premises does not
thereby (a) extend any assurance that the premises are safe
for such that purpose, or (b) constitute the person to whom
permission has been granted the legal status of an invitee or
licensee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (c) assume
responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to
person or property caused by any act of such the person to
whom permission has been granted except as provided in this
section.
4. Provides that the above provisions do not limit the
liability which otherwise exists (a) for willful or malicious
failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use,
structure or activity; or (b) for injury suffered in any case
where permission to enter for the above purpose was granted
for a consideration other than the consideration, if any,
paid to said landowner by the state, or where consideration
has been received from others for the same purpose; or (c) to
any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely
permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner.
5. Defines "recreational purposes" to include such activities
as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking,
spelunking, sport parachuting, riding, including animal
riding, snowmobiling, and all other types of vehicular
riding, rock collecting, sightseeing, picnicking, nature
study, nature contacting, recreational gardening, gleaning,
hang gliding, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying
historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or scientific
sites.
This bill adds "private noncommercial aviation activities" to
the list of activities defined as "recreational purposes" and
makes other technical, non-substantive changes.
Background
Generally speaking, every person has a duty to act as a
CONTINUED
SB 1072
Page
3
reasonably prudent person in his/her own acts so as not to
create unreasonable risks to foreseeable others. This principle
is reflected in California statutory law, which generally
provides that everyone is responsible, not only for the result
of his/her willful acts, but also for an injury to another
caused by his/her lack of ordinary care or skill in the
management of his/her property or person.
Traditionally, at common law, landowner duties were more
limited, with their specific duties premised upon three
classifications of individuals who might come on to their land:
(1) invitees (e.g. business visitors or any persons who enter at
the express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant for a
purpose of common interest or mutual benefit of both the owner
or occupant and that person); (2) licensees (e.g. social guests
or other persons coming on to the land by consent or permission
for purposes of his/her own, having no relation to the business
of the owner or occupant); and (3) trespassers. With respect to
an invitee, a landowner owed a duty of reasonable inspection and
to use reasonable care to protect the invitee from conditions
that create unreasonable risk of harm of which the landowner
knows or should know. With respect to a licensee, the landowner
owed a duty not to injure the licensee willfully or wantonly, or
through gross negligence, and to warn of or make safe any
dangerous condition that the landowner had actual knowledge of.
As to trespassers, if unknown, the landowner merely had a duty
to refrain from intentional harms or "willful or wanton injury,"
and no duty was owed to keep the premises in safe condition or
to carry on activities carefully. In contrast, where the
defendant knew or should have known that a trespasser had come
on the land, he/she had the duty to warn of artificial
conditions constituting concealed dangers, and to exercise
reasonable care in carrying on activities.
In 1968, the state Supreme Court largely repudiated the
traditional invitee-licensee-trespasser approach and substituted
it with the basic approach of foreseeability of injury to
others. As such, landowners must generally act as a reasonable
person in view of the probability of injuries to others. At the
same time, however, the plaintiff's status as a trespasser,
licensee, or invitee may still have some bearing on the
liability of the landowner; but that status is no longer
determinative.
CONTINUED
SB 1072
Page
4
Nonetheless, in order to encourage landowners to open their
properties and allow the general public to use the land free of
charge for recreational purposes, California has limited the
risk of liability to landowners for ordinary negligence toward
nonpaying recreational users of their land. Specifically, under
an owner generally owes no duty to keep his/her premises safe or
to warn of hazards as to persons entering with permission for
"any recreational purpose," unless: (1) there is willful or
malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition
by the landowner; (2) the landowner receives consideration from
the person or from others for the same purpose; or, (3) the
person is expressly invited, as opposed to merely permitted, to
come onto the premises by the landowner. The statute defines
the term "recreational purpose" to include activities ranging
from picnicking to hunting, and sport parachuting to
snowmobiling, and was last amended in 1988 to include hang
gliding.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/28/14)
The Recreational Aviation Foundation (source)
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Association of California Airports
AL:d 4/30/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED