Teen's Invitation Allows For Parental Liabliity For Guest Injured On Their Property

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Law Firm: Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Real Estate and Construction, Court Procedure, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury, Real Estate
• Author: Danielle Kuck and Robyn Weiss
• Published date: 04 April 2023

In Hoffmann v. Young, et. al, (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1257, the California Supreme Court held that a teen's parents were liable for injuries sustained by a guest while riding a motorcycle on the motocross track built on their property. The court found that the exception to the recreational immunity defense (Civil Code Section 846(a)) does not apply when the injured party was expressly invited by an agent of the landowner whom the landowner has properly authorized to extend invitations to enter the land on their behalf.

An invitation by the child of the landowner who is living on the property qualifies as an express invitation by the parents where the child acts as the parents' agent by expressly making the invitation on the landowner's behalf or subject to their control. However, a landowner does not necessarily authorize a child to expressly invite others to the property, for purposes of recreational-use immunity, merely because they allow the child to live on the land and they do not prohibit the child from extending the invitation. Parents can avoid potential liability for guests invited by children by expressly prohibiting the child from inviting guests.

General Facts

Mikayla Hoffmann was invited by Gunner Young (the landowner's son), to ride her motorcycle on a motocross track that was present on the property he shared with his parents. Gunner invited Hoffmann to his house without his parents knowledge. Although there is no direct evidence that Gunner was forbidden by his parents to invite guests over; there was some indication that only family members were permitted to ride on the track. Hoffmann was severely injured while riding her motorcycle on the track.

Hoffmann sued the Youngs for negligence/premises liability. Youngs did not personally, invite Hoffman to the property, she had never been to the property before, Gunner had not asked their permission to invite her there, and he did not tell them that he had done so.

The case ultimately went to trial where the Youngs were found not liable. Hoffmann moved for a new trial based, in part, that the express invitee exception to Section 846 was not applicable. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case for a new trial holding that when a child of the landowner is living with the landowner at their property, and the landowner consented to the living arrangement, the child's express invitation to a person to come to the property operates as an express invitation by the landowner withing the meaning of...