Mike W is right. AB 200 was passed in 1985 and is still part of the California Civil Code. 847 reads:

“847. (a) An owner, including, but not limited to, a public entity,
as defined in Section 811.2 of the Government Code, of any estate or
any other interest in real property, whether possessory or
nonpossessory, shall not be liable to any person for any injury or
death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after
the commission of any of the felonies set forth in subdivision (b) by
the injured or deceased person.
(b) The felonies to which the provisions of this section apply are
the following: (1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem;
(3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of
great bodily harm; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress,
menace, or threat of great bodily harm; (6) lewd acts on a child
under the age of 14 years; (7) any felony punishable by death or
imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any other felony in
which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other
than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant uses a
firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit
rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a
peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13)
assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding
a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16)
exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing great bodily
injury; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with
intent to murder; (18) burglary; (19) robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21)
taking of a hostage by an inmate of a state prison; (22) any felony
in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon;
(23) selling, furnishing, administering, or providing heroin,
cocaine, or phencyclidine (PCP) to a minor; (24) grand theft as
defined in Sections 487 and 487a of the Penal Code; and (25) any
attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an
assault…”

The McAllister bill in the California Legislature was introduced to prevent those lawsuits. It was called Assembly Bill 1 in about 1985.

That bill was bottled up in a state Senate committee chaired by my Senator, David Roberti, (D-Los Angeles/Burbank). I joined with a number of local residents and flooded Senator Roberti’s office with phone calls, letters and personal visits for several weeks. Eventually, the Senator’s committee moved the bill to the Senate floor, where it passed and was signed into law.

Nobody should underestimate the perfidy of the California Legislature, however. I would not be surprised if those scoundrels quietly passed a measure to gut or undo Assembly Bill 1.

He or she does ignore the argument why the school was not “criminally negligent,” and that the settlement was for about 6% of the initial demand, suggesting that it was a purely extortionate nuisance settlement, rather than one reflecting wrongdoing by the school. And while there is an accusation of “distorting” facts, he or she fails to identify a single such distorted fact. But the misspelling of the last word of Coppo’s comment is certainly telling.

In 1968, the California Supreme Court in Rowland v. Christian had written, “a man’s life or limb does not become less worthy of protection by the law nor a loss less worthy of compensation under the law because he has come upon the land of another without permission…
reasonable people do not ordinarily vary their conduct depending upon such matters.” Nonetheless, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that that the plaintiff’s status as a trespasser barred recovery as a matter of law. On June 6, 1983, Judge Redmon denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that the issue of whether the skylight was a dangerous, defective, and hazardous condition on public property was a question of fact for the jury.
In contrast, certain elements of the Bodine case made it less likely that the jury would deem Ricky’s accident an extraordinary occurrence. First, the defendants faced the possibility that because the skylights were hidden, the jury would be incensed that the high school and the school district had endangered other young people who were not engaging in crimes and would seek to punish them by awarding a substantial verdict to Ricky. The defendants admitted in their responses to the plaintiff’s interrogatories that they were aware that students and other young people commonly went onto the gymnasium roof to retrieve sports equipment. In Larry’s deposition, he reported hearing that “another kid fell through the same place Rick fell through, I don’t know how long after.” Moreover, any doubt as to whether the defendants recognized the specific risk that someone could fall through one of the painted-over skylights was resolved by the fatal accident at Shasta High less than a year earlier. The defendants undoubtedly recognized the risk of going to trial and having the jury learn that they had failed to take even minor steps such as posting warnings on the roofs or placing a wood barrier over the skylight following Paul Schuur’s fatal fall.

Right. So, we cover up the fact that the school was criminally negligent, given that they knew students were up there regularly and also knew of the previous fatality, and we play up the fact that the person who WAS grievously injured happened by chance to be up there for illegitimate purposes, and presto-change-o, we’ve sufficiently distorted the facts to whip up the public’s emotions to get them to support surrendering vital rights that protect them from corporate abuses.

Ah, the evil genius of Corporate Amerika.

If the school had not settled, that argument could have been made at preliminary pleadings, at trial, and on appeal.

This case has ambiguity because the defendant settled an unjust claim and prevented the decision of a tribunal.

If a claim is unjust, it should be disputed. Even if the legal defense costs exceed the potential payout, prevailing prevents that subject matter from becoming a lawyer cottage industry. Expensive resistance is an investment in the prevention of future bogus claims.

If you do, it will be the very first “comprehensive” post I have seen there. Your previous attempts have all fallen far, far short.

Once again, I am reminded of why I generally dislike the plaintiffs’ bar.

The actual case involved a teenager who was on the roof of a school and, by the best accounts we can find, was trying to redirect a light because they were trying to play basketball. And while he was on the roof he stepped through the skylight, which had been painted over black. So this may have been a trespasser, but it wasn’t a burglar. (Emphasis added.)

That’s right: in this account which is trying to debunk myths about the case, cited approvingly by Tortdeform, it turns a thief into a guy “trying to redirect a light.”

(He was trying to “redirect” it in the same way John Dillinger was trying to “redirect” a bank’s assets, I guess.)