"Hazardous Recreational Activity" laws??

[nolan]

This may belong under “Advocacy,” please advise.

I stumbled upon this at work researching something unrelated. California has what is referred to as "Hazardous Recreational Activity" laws that protect public entities from lawsuits related to extreme sport injuries at public facilities. An excerpt:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity, including any person who assists the participant, or to any spectator who knew or reasonably should have known that the hazardous recreational activity created a substantial risk of injury to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the place of risk, or having the ability to do so failed to leave, for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity.

I feel it no mystery that this legislation coincides with the mass proliferation of funding and support for public skate/bike parks in western states. I could not find any similar laws in Michigan. It goes without saying, but passing this type of law in Michigan would be a HUGE first step in getting more official support for adding freeride features to trails. Who’s in the know? How to get it started?

Here's the link to the whole law: http://law.onecle.com/california/government/831.7.html

[xcrdr]

That looks promising. Some insurance companies want to know where you were injured when you file a claim so they can try to find someone else responsible. I wonder how this would relate.

[c0nsumer]

Michigan already has a law like this for equestrians known as the Equine Activity Liability Act. Best copy of it I could find is mirrored here.

I think there is a copy of it posted at the trailhead at Addison Oaks.

Also, I'm moving this to Advocacy.

[cramer]

Laws like this can help protect land owners and such but most are more worried about the threat of the lawsuit than winning or losing the lawsuit. It doesn't matter if you're right or not, you still have to spend money to defend yourself if someone brings a lawsuit.

I think it would be really cool if the state would create a program that allowed land owners to designate portions of their land as private recreational areas and have the state take on the burden of handling any potential lawsuits as long as they weren't charging people for access. It would provide a way for someone to allow use of their land without any legal exposure. If someone tried to sue, they would have to deal with the state. The taxpayers would benefit from additional recreational land and possibly increased tourism.

[Loren]

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994

324.73301

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying to the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land a valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, or any other outdoor recreational use or trail use, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee.

[c0nsumer]

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994

324.73301

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying to the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land a valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, or any other outdoor recreational use or trail use, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee.

Well. That's that then.

Thank you.

[dauber76]

unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee.

Unfortunately there's the issue. There was a case in Canada where a personal injury lawyer (of course) sued a landowner because he hit a hole on the trail and fell off his bike. He claimed that there should have been more signage and therefore that equated to gross negligence. I never heard how that case ended up, but unfortunately it just shows that there are enough lawyers out there that will argue any case no matter what is written in the law books.

[Loren]

To take this topic further afield, this is another reason why a state presence is essential for us. Bad things can happen if no one is watching.

Illinois used to have a Recreational Use statute like this, that defined recreation as “any activity undertaken for conservation,resource management, exercise, education, relaxation, or pleasure on land owned by another.”

A few years ago their statute got changed to define protected recreation as “entry onto the land of another to conduct hunting or recreational shooting or a combination thereof or any activity solely related to the aforesaid hunting or recreational shooting.” In other words, private landowners were no longer protected against injuries during hiking, cycling, rock climbing, fishing and boating activities, or pretty much anything that didn't involve weaponry. One can imagine how this language was drafted.

Illinois house bill HB6072 introduced this year proposes to amend this to "entry by the general public onto the land of another for any activity undertaken for conservation, resource management, education, hiking, climbing, cycling, picnicking, swimming, fishing, horseback riding, bird watching, sight-seeing, skiing, ice skating, sledding, use of non-motorized watercraft, and the use of an easement to permit public passage across such land for access to a public park, historic site, trail, water area, or other public recreational area." Not sure if this is going anywhere.

[Tom L.]

To take this topic further afield, this is another reason why a state presence is essential for us. Bad things can happen if no one is watching.

Illinois used to have a Recreational Use statute like this, that defined recreation as “any activity undertaken for conservation,resource management, exercise, education, relaxation, or pleasure on land owned by another.”

A few years ago their statute got changed to define protected recreation as “entry onto the land of another to conduct hunting or recreational shooting or a combination thereof or any activity solely related to the aforesaid hunting or recreational shooting.” In other words, private landowners were no longer protected against injuries during hiking, cycling, rock climbing, fishing and boating activities, or pretty much anything that didn't involve weaponry. One can imagine how this language was drafted.

It sounds like the gun lobby kicks ass. Can we affiliate with the NRA instead of IMBA?

[tagheuer02]

how does the Michigan statute apply to Lakeshore?

I pay $5 to the owner (City of Novi) to enter the park and use the trail, so the Michigan statute cited above is inapplicable, which means that law would not prevent me from suing the City of Novi for something other than gross negligence, etc.

[nolan]

The notable difference I find from a hazardous activity law compared to Michigan's "natural resources" law, is that the prior specifically points out that there is an inherent danger to be expected by undertaking the activity, and thus this absolves the provider of the venue from liability, except in cases of gross negligence. Also, the hazardous rec law specifically mentions extreme sports; mountain biking, skating, etc. I think the law would perform best if it made no distinction between if access was provided on a per fee basis or not.

This is huge. Michigan freeride needs this. This will determine once and for all if the MMBA is serious about incorporating freeriding or not. Who do I call? How do I get this started? What is the first step? Are there any current lawmakers that are sympathetic to the mountain biking or outdoor extreme sports? Please tell me this organization has been cultivating relationships with legislators.

[Loren]

how does the Michigan statute apply to Lakeshore?

It doesn't. Lakeshore Park is owned by the City of Novi, and my understanding is that governments have different and additional protections beyond those of the private landowners covered by this statute.

[tagheuer02]

yes, generally speaking the state is immune from such liability. Cities such as Novi also have some protection. (I'm a real estate attorney).

Insurance is obviously another way to address this risk.

On that note, lets put in a giant hamster wheel!

[Loren]

This is huge. Michigan freeride needs this. This will determine once and for all if the MMBA is serious about incorporating freeriding or not. Who do I call? How do I get this started? What is the first step? Are there any current lawmakers that are sympathetic to the mountain biking or outdoor extreme sports? Please tell me this organization has been cultivating relationships with legislators.

If you haven't already, you should contact John Gonway (johnnyg), our advocacy director, for advice in how to get started. Calling and talking with YOUR representative and senator wouldn't hurt.

See http://www.senate.michigan.gov/FindYour ... ddress.htm
and http://www.house.mi.gov/find_a_rep.asp

These are great links for their email, phone and fax numbers.

[Di_bear]

To take this topic further afield, this is another reason why a state presence is essential for us. Bad things can happen if no one is watching.

Illinois used to have a Recreational Use statute like this, that defined recreation as “any activity undertaken for conservation,resource management, exercise, education, relaxation, or pleasure on land owned by another.”

A few years ago their statute got changed to define protected recreation as “entry onto the land of another to conduct hunting or recreational shooting or a combination thereof or any activity solely related to the aforesaid hunting or recreational shooting.” In other words, private landowners were no longer protected against injuries during hiking, cycling, rock climbing, fishing and boating activities, or pretty much anything that didn't involve weaponry. One can imagine how this language was drafted.

It sounds like the gun lobby kicks ass. Can we affiliate with the NRA instead of IMBA?

This would be an awesome relationship. They could use their money to open up more "hunting" land to us, and we could build more trails on that property and abstain from riding those areas during deer hunting season.