Ornelas v. Randolph

PANELLI, J., Dissenting.

There are three reasons why the majority’s interpretation of Civil Code section 8461 is erroneous. First, it fails to recognize that the Legislature has acquiesced in the long-standing rule requiring that the property in question be “suitable” for a recreational purpose. Second, it does not further the legislative intent underlying the statute. Third, it misconstrues the statutory phrase “any recreational purpose” to include climbing on farm equipment and, in so doing, violates basic principles of statutory construction. For these reasons, I dissent.

I

First, it is…