Landowner Protection Is Upheld : Courts: Private property used for recreational purposes is immune from lawsuits, state high court says. Dissenters say it will limit personal injury claims.

The state Supreme Court on Monday gave landowners wide protection against lawsuits by hunters, hikers, bird-watchers and others who are injured after entering private property for recreational purposes.

In a 4-3 decision, the high court, rejecting a series of appellate rulings, said landowners are immune from lawsuits even if their property holds potential hazards.

The justices also defined “recreation” broadly, saying it could include children climbing on farm equipment--the pursuit that led to a serious head injury to the 8-year-old boy in the case before the court.

The court majority concluded that the Legislature, enacting a pioneering 1963 law, had intended to give landowners strong protections against liability to induce them to make their property available for recreation.

“One who avails oneself of the opportunity to enjoy access to the land for (recreation) may not be heard to complain that the property was inappropriate for the purpose,” Justice Armand Arabian wrote for the court.

In dissent, Justice Edward A. Panelli, joined by Justices Stanley Mosk and Joyce L. Kennard, said the court had misconstrued the intent of the law and the term “recreational purpose.” The result of the decision, Panelli said, is a “blanket immunity” that will “severely curtail” the right to bring personal injury lawsuits.

Anthony Caso of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm that defends property rights, welcomed the court’s protections for landowners. “In California, tort liability has just gotten out of hand,” Caso said. “We have people going onto other people’s land for recreational purposes, not paying a cent, and who are hurt and then want to sue. It just doesn’t make sense.”

Ann Bryce Cushing of Los Angeles, an attorney who represented the injured boy in the case, said the decision could invite landowners to become negligent in the maintenance of equipment and other hazardous materials on their property. “This encourages dereliction of duty,” Cushing said.

The case arose in January, 1989, when Jose Ornelas and five young friends set foot on land in Delano where property owner Clinton Randolph kept farm equipment, irrigation pipes and other equipment. According to attorneys for Jose, the boy’s friends began playing on the equipment. A piece of pipe was jarred loose, striking Jose and fracturing his skull.

Jose’s lawyers brought a personal injury lawsuit, but a Kern County Superior Court judge ordered a dismissal. The judge found that Randolph was protected under the 1963 law, which bars such suits unless a landowner has willfully created a danger, charges for use or expressly invites others onto the property.

Last May, a state Court of Appeal reinstated the suit, finding that Randolph could be sued because the property where the equipment was stored was unsuitable for recreation. The ruling was consistent with other appellate decisions over the years, most of them allowing lawsuits over injuries during recreation on construction sites.

In Monday’s decision, the high court rejected past rulings that said landowners were protected only if their property was “suitable” for recreation. That exception to the law, Arabian wrote, was purely the creation of the judiciary--not the Legislature.

“The public policy balance achieved by the statute is clear,” Arabian said. “Landowners are broadly encouraged to allow access to their property; recreationists who take advantage of this access waive their right to sue for ordinary negligence.”