HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-22; City Council; 8588; SB 1694 Restore Immunity for Governmental Agencies0
~
0
0: a.. a.. <
z
0
~
...I
6 z ::::,
0
(J
Cll-.OF CARLSBAD -AGEND,-BILL
AB# R',s-tfl'
MTG. 4-22-86
DEPT._C_M __ _
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
SB 1694 -
RESTO~ IMMUNITY FOR
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
DEPT.HD.~
CITY A TriJJ;;lj_
CITY MGR.,-,,
Council support SB 1694 which reestcblishes immlJ'lity to public entities W'len
they have taken steps to protect the safety ard welfare of those who use public
property.
ITEM EXPLANATION
Senator Bergeson has introduced legislation to anero Section 831.2 of the
Goverrvnent Code, relating to licbili ty on public property in its natural
coroition. Senate Bill 1694 (Bergeson) would overturn Gonzales v The City of
San Diego court decision. In this case, the court ruled that a City (or any
public entity) which provides lifeguard sel'Vice loses its traditional immlJ'lity
ard can be held llcble. Senator Bergeson's bill ls a simple r611edy which would
reverse Gonzales v The City of San Diego ard would not penalize a City for
providing lifeguards or park rarger sel'Vices. The bill would reestcblish
imm1.11ity to public entitles W'IP.n they have taken steps to protect the safety aro
welfare of ttose Ytho use public property in its natural cordition.
EXHIBITS
1. Senate Bill 1694 dated February 5, 1986.
2. Resolution No. /{SO f':
I
SENATE Bill
Introduced by Senator Bergeson
February 5, 1986
An act to amend Section 831.2 of the Government Code, relating to public
liabllity.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1694, as introduced, Bergeson. Public liability: natural conditions.
Under existing law, neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
an injury caused by a natural condition of any unimproved public property.
This bill would provide that that immunity only applies to damages caused by a
dangerous condition of public property, but that it applies notwithstanding the
past or current provision of services by lifeguards, park rangers, or other
persons.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated
local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
2 (a) It is of vital public interest that the public be permitted use of
3 unimproved public property for recreation purposes.
4 (b) Public entities will be forced to close or restrict the use of their
5 property due to the expense of insuring against, defending, and paying
6 claims for injuries sustained by persons using such property.
7 (c) Public entitles should not lose their immunity because they have taken
8 steps to protect the safety and welfare of those using public property.
1 SECTION 2. Section 831.2 of the Government Code ls amended to read:
2 831.2. (a) Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an
3 injury caused by a natural condition of any unimproved public property,
4 including but not limited to any natural condition of any lake, stream, bay,
5 river or beach. This immunity applies only to damages caused by a dangerous
6 condition of public property.
7 (b) The immunity established by this section applies notwithstanding the
8 past or current provisions of services by lifeguards, park rangers, or other
9 persons who render services for the public.
~
!
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
RES>LUTION NO.~--
A RES>LUTION IN SUPl:QRT OF
SENATE BILL 1G94 (BERGESON).
WHEREAS, SenatX>r Bergeson has introducoo SB 1Ei94, anerdi~ Section 831.2 of
the Goverrment Code, relatirYJ to public l!cb!lity; and
WHEREAS, it ls of vital public interest that the pt.bile be pennltted use of
unimprOYed public property for recreational ptrposes; ard
WHEREAS, public entitles will be forced to close or restrict the use of
their property due to the e,cpense of insuring against, deferding, am payirg
claims for injuries sustained by persons using such propGrty; am
WHEREAS, public entities srould not lose their lmmu,ity because they have
taken steps to protect the safety am welfare of trose using pmllc property;
am
WHEREAS, a cour~t, in the case of Gonzales v Cl ty of San Diego, has
detennin~ that the pr CH ision of 11 feguard serv lee eliminates a goverrmental
agency's tradi tlonal !mmu,ity for accidents occurring on public property in its
natural state.
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad
supports SB 1694 -Bergeson -ard urges the California State Legislature to
adopt that legislation as quickly as possible to restore the lorgstarding
!mmu,ity for governnental agencies related to public property in its natural
cordition so that lifeguard service am other public safety personnel will
continue to be provided for the benefit of the public.
I II
Ill
Ill
I I/
Ill
Ill
3
l PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of th
2 City of Carlsbad held on the 22nd day of __ A..:.p_r_i_l ____ , 1986, by the
3 following vote, to wit:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: Council Members Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Pettine
NOCS: None
ABSENT: None
R'AAV R. C R, Rayor
ATTEST
~~K~
(SEAL)