Elisabeth Newman; Christina Newman, by and Through Guardianad Litem Steve Newman; Allison Newman, by and Throughguardian Ad Litem Steve Newman; Jonathan Newman, by Andthrough Guardian Ad Litem Steve Newman; Steve Newman,individually; Holly H. Newman; Micah Newman, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. United States of America, and Doe 1 Through Doe 8,inclusive, Defendants-appellees, 86 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Steve Newman, on behalf of his daughter Elisabeth Newman and other family members,¹  (collectively Newman) appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the United States (government) on his negligence claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) et seq. Newman's claim arose out of burn injuries Elisabeth sustained when she entered a hot pool at the Hot Creek Geothermal Area in the Inyo National Forest.

We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Given the warning signs, barricades and warning tape in place, there is no triable issue of fact whether the United States Forest Service wilfully, maliciously, or with reckless disregard failed to avoid the danger. See Mattice v. United States Dept. of Interior, 969 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1992). There was no hidden peril with no effort to warn of the danger here, as there was, for example, in Termini v. United States, 963 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1992). Nor is the "suitability" exception still available in California. Ornelas v. Randolf, 847 P.2d 570, 569 (Cal.1993). Finally, neither the text of the statute nor the decisional law suggests that the government owes a higher duty of care under Calif.Civ.Code § 846 simply because the injury involved a child. See id. at 561-62.

AFFIRMED.