No Trespassing Signs

Mr. Peebles says that he had to post "No Trespassing" signs on the Quarry property to limit is potential liability. According to the Pacifica Tribune:

The development company's insurance carrier had been urging Peebles to put up a chain-link fence, according to Grimm, but were willing to compromise with "No Trespassing" signs.

This explanation doesn't hold water, given that Peebles waited almost 18 months to address the liability issue. The action seems more like retaliation against Pacificans for the defeat of Measure L.

Also, California Civil Code section 846 is intended to limit liability in cases such as this, precisely to encourage property owners to allow access to property for recreational uses. A brief description of the legal aspects of this issue can be found in "Protection From Liability: Promoting The Use And Development Of Recreational Trails" By Laura A. Reimche, Staff Counsel

California Civil Code § 846 provides that a private landowner (or one having any possessory interest in land) owes no duty to those who comes upon his/her property for "any recreational purposes". This applies to both trespassers and permittees but not to express invitees. See Delta Farms Reclamation District No. 2028 v. Superior Court 33 Cal.3d 699 (1983), cert. denied.

In fact, property owners can seek reimbursement from the state of legal fees incurred in defending lawsuits related to recreational uses of land.

In any event, it appears that putting up the signs was premature, because the chief enforcement officer for the Coastal Commission has ruled that a coastal permit was required for the signs, and they will have to be removed until that permit is granted.

 

 

member login