California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

1110. Affirmative Defense—Natural Conditions (Gov. Code, § 831.2)

Download PDF
1110.Affirmative Defense—Natural Conditions (Gov. Code,
§ 831.2)
A public entity is not responsible for harm caused by a natural
condition of an unimproved public property. If [name of defendant]
proves that [name of plaintiff]’s injury was caused by such a condition,
then it is not responsible for the injury.
New September 2003
Sources and Authority
• Natural Condition of Unimproved Public Property. Government Code section
• Public Beaches. Government Code section 831.21.
• “The immunity provided by section 831.2 is absolute and applies regardless of
whether the public entity had knowledge of the dangerous condition or failed to
give warning. The legislative purpose in enacting section 831.2 was to ensure
that public entities will not prohibit public access to recreational areas due to
the burden and expense of defending against personal injury suits and of
placing such land in a safe condition.” (Goddard v. Department of Fish &
Wildlife (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 350, 360 [196 Cal.Rptr.3d 625 ], internal
citations omitted.)
• “The natural condition immunity applies even ‘where the public entity had
knowledge of a dangerous condition which amounted to a hidden trap.’ As a
consequence, courts have held there is no liability for failure to warn of a
known dangerous condition when the danger is a natural condition of
unimproved public property.” (Alana M. v. State of California (2016) 245
Cal.App.4th 1482, 1488 [200 Cal.Rptr.3d 410], internal citation omitted.)
• “The statutory immunity extends to ‘an injury caused by a natural condition of
any unimproved public property.’ The use of the term ‘caused’ is significant.
Here, although the injury occurred on improved property, that is, the paved
parking lot, it was caused by the trees, native flora located near—and perhaps
superadjacent to—the improved parking lot, but themselves on unimproved
property.” (Meddock v. County of Yolo (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 170, 177 [162
Cal.Rptr.3d 796], original italics, footnote and internal citations omitted.)
• “[T]o qualify public property as improved so as to take it outside the immunity
statute ‘some form of physical change in the condition of the property at the
location of the injury, which justifies the conclusion that the public entity is
responsible for reasonable risk management in that area, [is] required to
preclude application of the immunity.’ ” (Meddock, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p.
178 [162 Cal.Rptr.3d 796], original italics.)
• “It is also the rule that ‘improvement of a portion of a park area does not
remove the immunity from the unimproved areas.’ ‘The reasonableness of this
rule is apparent. Otherwise, the immunity as to an entire park area improved in
any way would be demolished. [Citation.] This would, in turn, seriously thwart
accessibility and enjoyment of public lands by discouraging the construction of
such improvements as restrooms, fire rings, campsites, entrance gates, parking
areas and maintenance buildings.’ ” (Alana M., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp.
• “It is now generally settled that human-altered conditions, especially those that
have existed for some years, which merely duplicate models common to nature
are still ‘natural conditions’ as a matter of law for the purposes of Government
Code section 831.2.” (Tessier v. City of Newport Beach (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d
310, 314 [268 Cal.Rptr. 233].)
• “Immunity under section 831.2 exists even where the public entity’s nearby
improvements together with natural forces add to the buildup of sand on a
public beach.” (Morin v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 184,
188 [263 Cal.Rptr. 479].)
• “The statutory immunity is fully applicable to manmade lakes and reservoirs.
Moreover, section 831.2 has been broadly construed to provide immunity even
where a natural condition has been affected in some manner by human activity
or nearby improvements.” (Goddard, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 361, internal
citations omitted.)
• “The mere attachment of a rope on defendant’s undeveloped land by an
unknown third party did not change the ‘natural condition’ of the land.”
(Kuykendall v. State of California (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 563, 566 [223
Cal.Rptr. 763].)
• “Essentially, [plaintiff]’s position is she was entitled to a campsite in the forest
safe from falling trees, but this ‘is exactly the type of complaint section 831.2
was designed to protect public entities against.’ ” (Alana M., supra, 245
Cal.App.4th at p. 1493.)
• “Given the intent of the Legislature in enacting section 831.2, we hold that wild
animals are a natural part of the condition of unimproved public property within
the meaning of the statute.” (Arroyo, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 762.)
Secondary Sources
5 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, §§ 250, 256
Haning, et al., California Practice Guide: Personal Injury, Ch. 2(III)-D, Liability
For “Dangerous Conditions” Of Public Property, ¶ 2:2825 et seq. (The Rutter
2 California Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed.)
§§ 12.82–12.87
5 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 61, Particular Liabilities and Immunities of
Public Entities and Public Employees, § 61.03 (Matthew Bender)
40 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 464, Public Entities and
Offıcers: California Government Claims Act, § 464.85 (Matthew Bender)
19A California Points and Authorities, Ch. 196, Public Entities, §§ 196.12, 196.214
(Matthew Bender)