Does section 831.7 of the California Code of Civil Procedure preclude the imposition of liability on a public entity for hazardous recreational activities?

Alternatively, section 831.7 precludes the imposition of liability on a public entity for hazardous recreational activities. However, plaintiffs contend this statutory immunity does not absolve 28th District from liability for conduct amounting to gross negligence. (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 750-751, 776-777.) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate gross negligence.

"Subdivision (a) of section 831.7 provides that a public entity is not liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity 'for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity.' The purpose of immunity for recreational activities on public land 'is to encourage public entities to open their property for public recreational use, because "the burden and expense of putting such property in a safe condition and the expense of defending claims for injuries would probably cause many public entities to close such areas to public use."'" (County of San Diego v. Superior Court, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 468.) A hazardous recreational

Page 14