CACI No. 1110. Affirmative Defense - Natural Conditions (Gov. Code, § 831.2)

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

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

831.2.

• 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]he statute presents two fact questions: whether a condition is ‘natural’ and

whether the property is ‘unimproved’ public property.” (County of San Mateo v.

Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 724, 731 [221 Cal.Rptr.3d 138].)

• “[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

692

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.

1488−1489.)

• “We express no opinion, however, as to whether proof of a causal link is merely

sufficient to defeat immunity or, as Alana M. held, necessary. [Plaintiff] contends

proof of a causal connection between improvements and the accident is

necessary to establish that property is improved and thus accepts the burden of

having to prove this. Therefore, for purposes here, we will assume without

deciding that proof that human conduct or improvements created, contributed to,

or exacerbated the dangerousness of a natural condition is not only a sufficient

but necessary, additional element of establishing that property is ‘improved.’ ”

(County of San Mateo,supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 740.)

• “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.)

• “The courts have generally understood campsites with amenities to be improved,

DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY CACI No. 1110

693

including the court in Alana M.” (County of San Mateo,supra, 13 Cal.App.5th

at p. 736.)

• “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 (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 302, 308

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 Group)

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)

CACI No. 1110 DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY

694

Page last reviewed May 2023