Mamola v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 781 involved an action against the state under the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (specifically, Gov. Code, 835) for personal injuries the plaintiffs suffered while driving on Old Cajon Boulevard in San Bernardino County, a road that the state had relinquished to that county, when their automobile struck a barricade that extended part way across the width of the end of the road, and fell 40 feet into an adjacent ravine created and owned by the state. (Mamola, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at pp. 785-786, 787.) The undisputed facts showed that at the time it relinquished the road to the county, the state retained ownership of the abutting ravine, and it also retained an easement over the road for purposes of ingress and egress. (Id. at p. 786.) The state brought a summary judgment motion on the grounds that it did not own, maintain or in any way exercise control over the road and that San Bernardino County had such ownership and control. (Ibid.) Appealing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the state, the plaintiff claimed the state's retention of an easement in the road created an ownership interest in the easement; the easement was therefore "public property" within the meaning of the California Tort Claims Act; and thus the state, as the owner of the easement, had a duty to protect against dangerous conditions on Old Cajon Boulevard. (Mamola, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 787.) Rejecting that claim, the Court of Appeal in Mamola concluded that the state's ownership of the easement, standing alone, "created no liability" (id. at p. 788), and the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact "arising from the State's retention of an easement for purposes of ingress and egress." (Id. at p. 789.) The court rejected the plaintiff's premise that the state's retention of the nonexclusive access easement over Old Cajon Boulevard relieved the County of San Bernardino, as the owner of the servient tenement, "from any duty to inspect for hazards." (Id. at p. 788.) The Court also held, however, that the trial court should have denied the state's summary judgment motion because under the circumstances of that case, there was a triable issue whether the state, as the owner and creator of the adjacent ravine, breached a duty to adequately barricade the ravine or provide a warning about the existence of the ravine to users of the road. (Mamola, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p. 792.) The court reasoned the plaintiff had adequately demonstrated the state owned the ravine, his car plunged to the bottom of it, the state created it, it was located at the terminus of the road, no adequate barricades or warnings concerning the ravine were present, and the state before relinquishing the adjacent highway to the county notified the county that traffic control measures, signs, striping and "special warning devices as necessary" would be required. (Id. at pp. 791-792.)