In Mathews v. City of Cerritos (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1380, the plaintiff was eight years old when he rode his bicycle down a steep hill in a park, although he knew the hill was too steep and his father had forbidden him to ride his bike down it. (Id. at p. 1383.) Summary judgment was affirmed. The court observed that "the plaintiff has the burden to establish that the condition is one which creates a hazard to persons who foreseeably would use the property with due care" and "Even children instinctively recognize steepness of a hill and slipperiness of wet grass. The trial court properly concluded there is no triable issue of fact and no reasonable person would conclude the property created a substantial risk of harm to reasonably foreseeable child users who use the property with the due care expected of children. 'While it is common knowledge that children often heedlessly engage in games or activities which are dangerous or harmful to their health, at some point the obligation of the public entity to answer for the malfeasance or misfeasance of others, whether children or parents, reaches its outer limits.'" (Id. at pp. 1384-1385.)