Biscotti v. Yuba City Unified School District
Filed December 27, 2007, Third District
Cite as 2007 SOS 7624

Tort law not given to protect even a 9-year-old boy from carelessness

Children would always do some crazy things that continue to astound their parents and the community. One example is the case of Christian Biscotti v. Yuba City Unified School District.

Christian Biscotti, a 9-year-old boy went with his friends, to the grounds of a local public school, Lincrest School, to ride their bicycles. After a while, they decided to pick oranges from a tree. The tree was located in a neighboring yard and was on the other side of a metal chain link fence. The fence was built during the school's construction back in 1959 and it has metal prongs across its top edge.

After Christian and his friends finished picking the oranges that they could reach, Christian made the fateful decision. He propped the handle bar of his bicycle into one of the openings of the chain link fence. Then, Christian attempted to climb on the bicycle to get to the higher part of the tree by balancing himself with one foot on the bicycle's seat and the other foot on the bar.

While he was reaching over the fence and picking an orange, the bicycle slipped and Christian fell onto the fence. His left arm was struck into the metal prongs at the top of the fence and was cut.

Before the accident, no complaints were reported regarding the safety of the fence. There were also no accidents or injuries encountered that was related to the fence.

Christian sued the Yuba City School District in the Superior Court of Sutter County.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district.

Christian appealed to the California Court of Appeals, 3rd District.

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment. It stated that:

• They agreed with the trial court that Christian had "failed to raise a triable issue of material fact on the issue of whether the school district maintained a dangerous condition on its property."
  

  The Court's analysis started with the elements Christian was required to prove to prevail in his lawsuit. The Court however, focused on the definition of a dangerous condition.

  Inciting to Government Code Section 830 the Appellate Court reasoned, "The injury that resulted when the readily apparent risk of falling became a reality is not compensable because the undisputed facts establish that Christian was not using the fence 'with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used.'

  More precisely, the Appellate Court stated that:

• The risk of falling and being seriously injured would be obvious, even to a 9-year-old boy.

  It also pointed out that "no reasonable person would conclude that it was reasonably foreseeable that children would thread bicycle handlebars through the fence to make an impromptu ladder."

The Court reminded the parties that several cases in the County of California have held that public entities have no duty, as a matter of law, to prevent members of the public, including young children, from climbing walls and fences that were built for the very purpose of keeping them out of areas of relative danger.

The Court further explained in strong terms that the lesson to be learned in this case is that Tort law does not protect Christian from the consequences of his careless decision. The Appellate Court also cited other case that resulted to the same situation as Christian's case.