@Mark Re: @ Throatwarbler Mangrove Sauce for the goose...
I think many missed what I was saying and focused on the legal liability...
The point was that Khosla's lawsuit dealt with easements and this is where he will lose.
(And has consistently lost. The beach (below tide) which is public property is 'land locked' (yeah I know about the water...) and thus an easement apprutenant ?sp? is required. (Meaning that you john doe, has the right to cross his land to get to the public beach because there is no other way to get there. )
His only legal objection deals with potential legal liability.
To your point, yes you can put up all the signs in the world, yet one slip and fall, you can bet your bottom dollar that a lawyer will suddenly appear and sue Khosla. Even if its frivolous, there's a cost.
While the city should annex the path via eminent domain, Khosla demanded too much money.
Here the city would have to sue Khosla to get the land at a more reasonable price. Khosla is the type of guy to push it where he's going to spend more on legal costs than the land is actually worth, just to be a bully. (His ego needs the win.)
Like I said, the issue is complicated.
In general, for all property owners, there can be some legal liability when you have easements for the public on your land. But for the most part. in general, most land owners aren't dicks.