The following excerpt is from Rost v. U.S., 803 F.2d 448 (9th Cir. 1986):
I cannot interpret section 846, as does the majority, according to rigid formulas encrusted upon the statute by cases dealing with situations entirely different from this one. 2 I would interpret the section in light of its scope and purpose. In passing section 846, the California legislature sought to encourage landowners to open their gates so that the public could enjoy certain recreational uses free of charge. Simpson v. United States, 652 F.2d 831, 833 (9th Cir.1981). These recreational uses, such as "fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, spelunking, [etc.]", by their nature, call for large open areas that must be left in an unimproved or partially improved condition. Making large areas of open land entirely safe could be prohibitively expensive and might impair the land's natural beauty, undermining its suitability for recreational uses. The legislature therefore gave landowners broad protection: It exempted them from liability for their own negligence, allowing liability only for willful or malicious conduct.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.