KLEIN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Part-III
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>KLEIN v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >KLEIN v. </b><b<br /> >UNITED<br /> STATES OF AMERICA</b><b<br /> ></b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/26/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >IN THE SUPREME<br /> COURT OF </b><b >CALIFORNIA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>ALAN RICHARD KLEIN et al., )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> Plaintiffs<br /> and Appellants, )<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/> v. )<br /> S165549<br /> <br/> )<br /> <br/>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ) 9th<br /> Cir. No. 06-55510<br /> <br/> ) C.D.<br /> Cal. No. <br /> <br/> Defendants and Respondents. )<br /> CV-05-05526-PA<br /> <br/>__________________________________ )<u></u><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM <br /> PART II….</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Land may be<br /> unsuitable for recreation, and the owner may attempt to prevent recreational<br /> trespassing, not only because of dangerous physical conditions of the land<br /> itself, but because the activities the owner is conducting on the property --<br /> whether industrial, agricultural, commercial, residential, or even recreational<br /> -- simply make it incompatible with recreational use by outsiders. No reason appears why those activities, if<br /> not willful or malicious, should nonetheless expose the owner to tort liability<br /> when a trespasser who enters the land for recreational purposes is injured.<br /> <br/>Despite all<br /> this, the majority concludes that section 846's basic immunity extends only to<br /> the physical condition of the land itself, not to <i >uses</i> or <i >activities</i> on the<br /> land by the owner, such as the operation of a motor vehicle by the owner (or<br /> the owner's employee). To support its<br /> conclusion, the majority first points to features of the statutory<br /> language. However, I respectfully<br /> submit that the majority's parsing of the statute does not withstand<br /> scrutiny. To put my views in context, I<br /> briefly review the statutory terms.<br /> <br/>For our<br /> purposes, the significant portions of section 846 are contained in the first,<br /> third, and fourth paragraphs. The first<br /> paragraph provides in pertinent part that one with a possessory<br /> interest in real property â€