Alan Richard Klein, Plaintiffs and Appellants v. United States of America, Defendan — Baxter, J…

Summary

The dissent would have construed Civil Code section 846 to immunize a landowner from liability for ordinary negligence causing injury to a nonpaying, uninvited recreational user, including negligence arising from the landowner’s activities or uses of the property. It reasoned that the statutory language, legislative purpose, and trespasser-related policies do not distinguish between static property conditions and active conduct. The dissent therefore would have concluded that the federal government was shielded from liability for its employee’s negligent driving on federal land.