California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rombalski v. City of Laguna Beach, 213 Cal.App.3d 842, 261 Cal.Rptr. 820 (Cal. App. 1989):
Bryon argues triable issues of fact are present to determine (1) if diving was or was not prohibited and (2) whether reasonable warning was required to be given. He concludes that if diving was not prohibited and reasonable warning thereof was not given the city's hazardous activity defense fails. We disagree. In De Vito v. State of California (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 264, 248 Cal.Rptr. 330, the court determined an exception to the immunity provided by section 831.7 exists where a public entity fails to guard or warn of a known dangerous condition that is not reasonably assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the hazardous recreational activity out of which the injury arose. In De Vito the plaintiff was injured while swinging from a firehose attached to a tree limb over a cliff. The court held plaintiff had reasonably assumed the inherent risk of falling down the slope. It is therefore clear the phrase "that is not reasonably assumed by the participant as inherently part of the hazardous
Page 826
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.