Code Details

CIVIL CODE – CIV
DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 – 1422] ( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. )
PART 2. REAL OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY [[755.] – 945.5] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 3. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF OWNERS [818 – 855] ( Title 3 enacted 1872. )
CHAPTER 2. Obligations of Owners [840 – 848] ( Chapter 2 enacted 1872.

Exact Statute Text

(a) 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 others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on those premises to persons entering for a recreational purpose, except as provided in this section.

(b) A “recreational purpose,” as used in this section, includes activities such 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, private noncommercial aviation activities, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or scientific sites.

(c) An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, who gives permission to another for entry or use for the above purpose upon the premises does not thereby do any of the following:

(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for that purpose.

(2) 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.

(3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of the person to whom permission has been granted except as provided in this section.

(d) This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists for any of the following:

(1) Willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.

(2) 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.

(3) Any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner.

(e) This section does not create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to person or property.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 92, Sec. 33. (SB 1289) Effective January 1, 2019.)

Civil Code § 846 Summary

California Civil Code § 846 grants significant immunity from liability to landowners who allow others to use their property for recreational purposes. Generally, if a property owner permits someone to enter their land for activities like hiking, fishing, camping, or sightseeing without charging a fee, the owner does not owe a duty to keep the premises safe or warn of hazardous conditions. This means that if a person gets injured while engaging in a recreational activity on another’s property under these circumstances, they generally cannot sue the landowner for negligence.

The statute clarifies that simply granting permission does not guarantee safety, elevate the recreational user to the legal status of an “invitee” (to whom a higher duty of care is owed), or make the landowner responsible for injuries caused by the recreational user’s own actions.

However, this immunity is not absolute. Landowners can still be held liable in specific situations: if they *willfully or maliciously* fail to guard or warn against a dangerous condition; if they charge a fee or receive “consideration” (payment) for the recreational use (other than certain state payments); or if they *expressly invited* the person onto the premises, rather than merely permitting them to enter. The law explicitly states it does not create new duties, only limits existing ones in these specific contexts.

Purpose of Civil Code § 846

The primary purpose of California Civil Code § 846 is to encourage private landowners to open their property for public recreational use by limiting their potential liability for injuries. Before such “recreational use statutes” were enacted across the country, landowners were often hesitant to allow public access to their land for fear of lawsuits if someone was injured. This reluctance restricted opportunities for outdoor recreation.

By reducing the legal risk for property owners who permit recreational activities without charge, the legislature aimed to expand public access to private lands for a wide range of outdoor pursuits. The statute strikes a balance: it protects landowners from ordinary negligence claims arising from the recreational use of their property while still holding them accountable for more egregious conduct, such as willful or malicious acts, or when they profit directly from the public’s use of their land. In essence, it serves as a public policy initiative to promote outdoor recreation by mitigating the financial and legal burdens on property owners.

Real-World Example of Civil Code § 846

Imagine the Miller family owns a large, undeveloped ranch with scenic hiking trails and a small pond. They are good-natured and don’t mind local hikers occasionally using a path that crosses their property to access a public park. They have never charged anyone for access and simply have a “Hikers Welcome” sign near their fence line.

One sunny afternoon, Sarah decides to hike the path on the Miller’s ranch. Unbeknownst to her, a fallen tree limb has recently created a hidden trip hazard on a less-maintained part of the trail. Sarah, engrossed in the scenery, trips over the limb, falls, and breaks her arm.

Under Civil Code § 846, Sarah would likely have a difficult time suing the Millers for her injury.

• Recreational Purpose: Hiking is explicitly listed as a recreational purpose under the statute.
• No Duty of Care: The Millers allowed Sarah to use their land for recreational purposes without charging a fee. Therefore, they generally owed no duty to keep the path safe or warn of hazards like the fallen limb.
• No Willful/Malicious Conduct: There’s no indication the Millers knew about the limb and *willfully or maliciously* failed to warn Sarah. It was an ordinary hazard of undeveloped land.
• Not Expressly Invited for Consideration: Sarah was merely permitted, not expressly invited, and paid no consideration to the Millers for her entry.

In this scenario, Civil Code § 846 would likely protect the Millers from liability, illustrating how the statute encourages landowners to allow public access for recreation without fear of typical negligence lawsuits.

Related Statutes

While Civil Code § 846 specifically addresses landowner immunity for recreational use, it operates within a broader framework of premises liability and government immunity. Other related statutes include:

• Civil Code § 1714 – Responsibility for Willful Acts, Negligence, Etc.: This is California’s foundational statute for negligence, stating that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their want of ordinary care or skill. Civil Code § 846 acts as a specific exception or limitation to this general rule, creating immunity for landowners in particular circumstances. Understanding § 1714 is crucial to appreciate how § 846 carves out an exception to standard negligence principles.
• Government Code § 831.4 – Immunity of Public Entity and Employee From Liability for Injury Caused by Condition of Unpaved Road or Trail Used for Recreational Purposes: This statute provides a similar immunity to public entities and their employees for injuries occurring on unpaved roads or trails used for recreational purposes, such as hiking, biking, or riding. While § 846 applies to private landowners, § 831.4 demonstrates a similar legislative intent to encourage public access to land for recreation, even when managed by government entities.
• Government Code § 831.7 – Immunity of Public Entity and Employee From Liability for Injury Arising From Hazardous Recreational Activity on Public Land: This section extends public entity immunity to injuries arising from “hazardous recreational activities” on public land, provided there isn’t gross negligence or a known dangerous condition. Like § 831.4, it reflects a policy to promote public recreation by limiting liability, but specifically targets activities deemed inherently more dangerous.

Why Civil Code § 846 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Code § 846 is a critical statute in California personal injury litigation, particularly in premises liability cases involving outdoor recreational accidents. For plaintiffs, it represents a significant hurdle to overcome when seeking compensation for injuries sustained on another’s private property during recreational activities. A personal injury lawyer representing an injured recreational user must thoroughly investigate whether any of the statute’s exceptions apply. This means examining:

• Intent: Was the landowner’s failure to warn or guard against a hazard “willful or malicious,” or merely negligent? Proving willful or malicious conduct requires a higher standard of proof than simple negligence and is often difficult.
• Consideration: Was any form of payment or benefit exchanged for the right to enter the property? Even a small fee can negate the immunity. Attorneys will look for hidden fees, donations, or indirect benefits.
• Invitation vs. Permission: Was the injured party “expressly invited” onto the property for the recreational purpose, or merely tolerated/permitted to be there? An express invitation often implies a greater assumption of responsibility by the landowner.

For defendants (landowners), Civil Code § 846 is a powerful defense. It allows them to argue that they owed no duty of care to the injured party, effectively shutting down negligence claims unless an exception can be proven. Defense attorneys will emphasize that the landowner did not charge a fee, did not act willfully or maliciously, and merely permitted—rather than expressly invited—the recreational use.

Understanding this statute is crucial for both sides to properly evaluate the merits of a premises liability claim involving recreational activities on private land in California. It shapes initial case assessments, discovery strategies, and settlement negotiations, highlighting the importance of the specific circumstances surrounding entry and the landowner’s conduct.