Jeff Birren, Senior Writer
Plaintiff Mary Anselmo attended Pierce Community College (“Pierce”) in Los Angeles County. She was a member of the school’s women’s volleyball team. In March 2016 the team travelled to San Diego County to play a beach volley tournament at Grossmont Community College. During the game on March 4, 2016 Anselmo claimed that she dove for a ball and injured her knee on a rock in the sand. Anselmo sued the Grossmont Community College District (“Grossmont”).
Her initial complaint had causes of action for negligence, gross negligence and premises liability. After a meet and confer session, counsel amended the complaint. The premises liability claim was replaced with a cause of action for dangerous condition of public property. Grossmont demurred to the amended complaint on the basis that it had immunity due to the field trips and excursion section of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations Section 55220 (“§55220”.) That code gives sweeping immunities to schools that provide transportation to “field trips” and “excursions.” The trial court sustained the demurrer, holding that Anselmo had not alleged sufficient facts to show that the field trips and excursion immunity did not apply.
Anselmo filed a second amended complaint, alleging a single cause of action for a dangerous condition of public property. She claimed that that her participation in the tournament was mandatory and that she received credit for attendance. Grossmont filed the same demurrer. The trial court again sustained the demurrer, this time without leave to amend, and Anselmo appealed.
The California Court of Appeal stated that the “sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the field trips and excursions immunity provided in section 55220 applies here” (Anselmo v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, Case No. D072549, California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 8-3-18, (“Anselmo”) at 3.)
In a published opinion, the Court held that the field trips and excursion immunity did “not apply to a injury suffered by a member of a visiting team during an intercollegiate event” (Id.) “Grossmont provided the athletic facility to be used, and it is responsible for the conditions of that facility. This duty of care protects all participants in the event, not just members of the Grossmont team” (Id.)
The Court noted that it reviewed the order sustaining the demurrer de novo, “exercising our independent judgment on whether the complaint states a cause of action” (Id.) The Court referred to California Government Code §835. That section prescribes the conditions under which a public entity can be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition of its property. It requires, in part, proof that the plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that was incurred, and that either a negligent or wrongful act of an employee of the public entity created the dangerous condition or that the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition with sufficient time to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.
The Court cited Avila v. Community College District, (38 Cal. 4th 148, 2006)(“Avila.”) Avilainvolved a community college player from a visiting team who, while batting, was deliberately hit by a pitched ball. Although the California Supreme Court decided against imposing liability in Avila, it stated that the community college owed a duty to “home and visiting players alike” to “not increase the risks inherent in the sport.” It also sets the “framework for the duty of care owed toward visiting teams” (Avila, 38 Cal. 4th at 162-163.)
The Anselmo court then quoted the field trips and excursions immunity in §55220, and stated that the “narrow question we must address in this case is whether this immunity extends to an injury sustained during an interscholastic athletic competition by a member of the visiting team caused by the negligence of the home team’s district” (Anselmo at 5-6.)
Avila “makes it clear” that “a district that hosts an interscholastic event owes a general duty to all participating teams–both home and visitor–to avoid acts or omissions that materially increase the risks to participants beyond those inherent in the sport” (Id. at 6, emphasis in the original.)
Grossmont responded to Avila by stating that there would be no field trip immunity if a member of the Grossmont team was injured, but that it did apply to all visiting teams. The Court was not impressed. “Grossmont argues for a result that is both absurd and unfair. Even if a ‘field trip’ or ‘excursion’ might take place while the Pierce College students were being transported to and from Grossmont, it does not continue during the athletic competition itself. Once the visiting team arrived, Grossmont had an ongoing responsibility to all participants–home team and visitors–to provide a reasonably safe premises” (Id.)
The Court distinguished cases cited by Grossmont. One case dealt with students attending a camp. “It did not involve interscholastic competition. There was not home or visiting team” (Id.) “The facts at hand are completely different. Grossmont did not ‘conduct’ or operate Pierce College’s travel to Grossmont for intercollegiate play in any sense of section 55220, subdivision (a)” (Id. at 7.)
Grossmont provided the facility, Pierce provided the transportation. Grossmont’s duty was not specific to Pierce but instead “had the responsibility to provide a safe beach volleyball court, in accordance with any applicable regulations” (Id.) Avilaimposed a duty on Grossmont that “entailed not increasing the risks inherent in beach volleyball” (Avila38 Cal. 4th at 162.) Thus it had an “ongoing responsibility to its students and its invitees to provide reasonably safe premises, and it had, undoubtedly, insurance for any mishaps due to the negligence of its maintenance crew. Grossmont did not conduct Anselmo’s field trip or excursion and does not benefit from the immunity liability provided to such conductors” (Anselmo at 7.)
In the other cases relied on by Grossmont, the defendants had provided the transportation to the plaintiffs. “These cases are not pertinent here, where Grossmont provided a facility, but did not conduct Anselmo’s team on her trips to Grossmont” (Id. at 8.)
The field trips and excursion immunity “does not extend to Grossmont as the host of a visiting team merely because her team traveled to the site of the competition. The trial court erred in sustaining Grossmont’s demurrer on this ground” (Id. at 9.) The Court of Appeal reversed the order dismissing the second amended complaint, awarded Anselmo her costs on appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court.
So the case will resume in the trial court. Anselmo will have to prove that either Grossmont created the problem, or knew about the risk with sufficient time to fix it prior to the match.
There is nothing in the current opinion that states the scope of Anselmo’s injury. All it says is that “Anselmo alleged she was injured during one of the tournament games when she dove into the sand and her knee struck a rock in the sand” (Id. at 3.) It does not mention the nature or extent of the injury, if she ever recovered from it, who treated her and how, or even which knee was involved.
There will also be many questions about the specific “rock”, such as, how big was it? Was it visible at game time? If not, how much sand covered it? Did any of the participants see it? Was anyone at Grossmont, including coaches, equipment staff and maintenance staffs among others, aware of it, and if so, for how long?
Those questions will go on and on, and all of these issues will be a major focus of discovery in the case.
The Court thus avoided the outrageous result of a case that provided liability for home team members, who undoubtedly know the playing field far better than the visiting team, but immunized the home field from claims from the visiting team, many of whom were undoubtedly seeing the playing field for the first time during the competition. Sometimes the results of decisions are truly fair.
Birren is an adjunct professor at Southwestern University School of Law and former general counsel of the Oakland Raiders.
