A motorcycle rider was injured as a result of colliding with a barbed wire gate which had been erected across a road in a national forest by the holder of a federal grazing permit. The injured rider sued the permit holder for negligence. Citing section 846 of the Civil Code, which immunizes owners of interests in real property from liability arising out of recreational use of the property, the trial court granted summary judgment for the holder of the grazing permit. A divided Court of Appeal reversed, the majority observing that the regulations governing federal grazing permits declare that the granting of such a permit creates no property "right, title, or interest" in the permittee. The California Supreme Court agreed to review the case to decide whether the holder of a federal grazing permit is entitled to immunity under section 846.

In section 846 the Legislature expressed a strong policy that land should be open to recreational use. Section 846 accomplishes this purpose by immunizing persons with interests in property from tort liability to recreational users, thus making recreational users responsible for their own safety and eliminating the financial risk that had kept land closed. The Legislature adopted an exceptionally broad definition of the types of "interest" in property which will trigger immunity. Under the statute, immunity extends to the "owner of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory." ( 846.) In contrast, the federal regulation relied on by the Court of Appeal is designed simply to assure that a grazing permittee acquires no interest in federal land that is compensable in eminent domain proceedings.

You are currently a member of the California Supreme Court hearing this case. The trial court ruled one way and the appellate court ruled the other way. Do you think Civil Code Section 846 should apply in this case or not? In other words, would you rule for the motorcycle rider or the cattleman?