[RC] California Statute/liability issue - Nancy Reed
I think a point has been missed in this discussion. I think (and I sure could be wrong) that
the issue is about the STATE of California’s
duties to the public in state owned parks that are specifically for trail use. I do not think it is about Joe Sixpack’s duty should he have a trail on his
property.
The case was about a trail that was in bad shape in an ATV
park owned by the STATE of California.The trail was not closed nor did it have
any warning. It was alleged that
the poor trail conditions killed the ATV rider.This case proves that the STATE has no
liability regarding trail condition.
So, I may be wrong in my interpretation, but if the State
does not have a duty to manage the trails, why are we spending all this
money/time/energy on Management Plans, closing trails and entire parks after
fires (like Cuyamaca) and massive rain storms?
I do need to state that without the liability immunity I
would have no trails to ride on.No
landowner in his right mind would ever dedicate a public trail across his land
if he would be held liable for injuries that occurred on “his”
trail.That is just the way it is
due to the litigious society we live in.
It just seems a little weird that we pay lots of taxes to have
parks and that the bureaucrats keep closing them when in fact they don’t
have to. Cause they do not have a duty nor are they liable for maintaining them.Guess life is strange here in the
Peoples Republic of California after all.
Nancy Reed (I don’t know much; this is just my stupid
crazy ramblings.)
