Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Calendar
Monthly
Weekly
Agenda
Archive
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
Forums
Rock Crawling Forums
General Discussion
DNR Immunity Law email campaign
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dusten" data-source="post: 1280707" data-attributes="member: 16296"><p>Dusten,</p><p> </p><p>Thank you for writing.</p><p> </p><p>I am familiar with the concerns you expressed, as many others have echoed your sentiments over the years, and there have been several efforts made to reform the language of the statute.</p><p> </p><p>Below you'll find some back ground information on efforts made in our state to reform landowner liability statute. The burden of proof in the courts is quite stringent, but apparently not stringent enough to persuade more landowners to open up or allow more folks on their privately owned open spaces. As you can see, it can take years to enact or change any given law.</p><p> </p><p>I appreciate your suggestion. We will be working with a shorter, supplemental legislative session revolving mostly around the increasing state budget deficit. This means that there will not be much time to develop and pass legislation, but that does not mean that efforts could not or will not be made regarding reform of the statute as currently written. No guarantees in the legislative process.</p><p> </p><p>But, I will keep your suggestion in mind as we inch closer to January.</p><p> </p><p>Regards,</p><p> </p><p>Mike</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Landowner Liability: Opening land to recreation users</p><p> </p><p>RCW 4.24.210, "Liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for injuries to recreation users – Limitations." (1967)</p><p> </p><p>"Nothing in this section shall prevent liability of a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted."</p><p> </p><p>In 2001, the Washington State Supreme Court found in favor of the state in Davis v. State of Washington explaining that an injured recreational user must prove all four elements in the injury-causing condition or the landowner is not liable: 1) known 2) dangerous 3) artificial and 4) latent.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> * The issue of landowner liability has been discussed over the years and a number of bills have been introduced. The Department of Natural Resources convened a work group on ways to enhance recreational opportunities and recommended reforming the liability statute.</p><p> * The concern continues among landowners that it is safer and much less expensive to post "No Trespassing" signs than to defend a lawsuit – even if they expect the outcome to be favorable. In addition, there is the uncertainty of court interpretations. As a result, recreational users are denied access they might otherwise enjoy.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>SB 5422-S (2009) – by Senators Parlette, Stevens and others (died in Senate Rules)</p><p>Summary of Bill: Limits liability for making certain land and water areas available for recreational use under a hydroelectric license.</p><p> </p><p>SB 5215 (2007) – by Senators Jacobsen and Kline (died in NR Committee)</p><p>Bill Summary: Provides that a daily, seasonal, or annual charge for access to privately owned lands for the purposes of outdoor recreation where all revenues are devoted to land management costs are not fees.</p><p> </p><p>SB 6354 (2006) – by Senators Sheldon and Stevens (died in Senate Rules)</p><p>Summary of Bill: A daily charge not to exceed $20 per person, per day, for access to a</p><p>publicly owned off-road vehicle (ORV) park or facility, for the purposes of ORV use, is not considered a fee for the purposes of the recreation use immunity statute.</p><p> </p><p>HB 1195 (2003) – by Rep. Delvin and others (Senate vote 47-0, Stevens/Zarelli excused, House vote 91-0, signed into law)</p><p>Bill Summary: Rock climbing is added to the list of recreational activities for which a landlord may be immune from civil liability for injury or death caused by the landlord's unintentional acts. The Legislature expresses its intent that the specific inclusion of rock climbing does not imply that other related recreational activities are not also covered by these immunity provisions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dusten, post: 1280707, member: 16296"] Dusten, Thank you for writing. I am familiar with the concerns you expressed, as many others have echoed your sentiments over the years, and there have been several efforts made to reform the language of the statute. Below you’ll find some back ground information on efforts made in our state to reform landowner liability statute. The burden of proof in the courts is quite stringent, but apparently not stringent enough to persuade more landowners to open up or allow more folks on their privately owned open spaces. As you can see, it can take years to enact or change any given law. I appreciate your suggestion. We will be working with a shorter, supplemental legislative session revolving mostly around the increasing state budget deficit. This means that there will not be much time to develop and pass legislation, but that does not mean that efforts could not or will not be made regarding reform of the statute as currently written. No guarantees in the legislative process. But, I will keep your suggestion in mind as we inch closer to January. Regards, Mike Landowner Liability: Opening land to recreation users RCW 4.24.210, “Liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for injuries to recreation users – Limitations.” (1967) “Nothing in this section shall prevent liability of a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted.” In 2001, the Washington State Supreme Court found in favor of the state in Davis v. State of Washington explaining that an injured recreational user must prove all four elements in the injury-causing condition or the landowner is not liable: 1) known 2) dangerous 3) artificial and 4) latent. * The issue of landowner liability has been discussed over the years and a number of bills have been introduced. The Department of Natural Resources convened a work group on ways to enhance recreational opportunities and recommended reforming the liability statute. * The concern continues among landowners that it is safer and much less expensive to post “No Trespassing” signs than to defend a lawsuit – even if they expect the outcome to be favorable. In addition, there is the uncertainty of court interpretations. As a result, recreational users are denied access they might otherwise enjoy. SB 5422-S (2009) – by Senators Parlette, Stevens and others (died in Senate Rules) Summary of Bill: Limits liability for making certain land and water areas available for recreational use under a hydroelectric license. SB 5215 (2007) – by Senators Jacobsen and Kline (died in NR Committee) Bill Summary: Provides that a daily, seasonal, or annual charge for access to privately owned lands for the purposes of outdoor recreation where all revenues are devoted to land management costs are not fees. SB 6354 (2006) – by Senators Sheldon and Stevens (died in Senate Rules) Summary of Bill: A daily charge not to exceed $20 per person, per day, for access to a publicly owned off-road vehicle (ORV) park or facility, for the purposes of ORV use, is not considered a fee for the purposes of the recreation use immunity statute. HB 1195 (2003) – by Rep. Delvin and others (Senate vote 47-0, Stevens/Zarelli excused, House vote 91-0, signed into law) Bill Summary: Rock climbing is added to the list of recreational activities for which a landlord may be immune from civil liability for injury or death caused by the landlord’s unintentional acts. The Legislature expresses its intent that the specific inclusion of rock climbing does not imply that other related recreational activities are not also covered by these immunity provisions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Latest posts
Pickett State Park/Blackhouse Mountian 1-23-2016
Latest: ridered3
Friday at 3:12 PM
Trail Rides & Competitions
Daves Offroad Supply
Latest: Daves Offroad Supply
Wednesday at 10:52 AM
Vendors
B
For Sale
Artec Back-bone truss for 14 bolt
Latest: Bebop
Tuesday at 7:19 PM
Off Road 4x4 Parts For Sale
P
YouTube of the day
Latest: paradisepwoffrd
Monday at 8:21 AM
General Discussion
Cash LeCroy Illness
Latest: ridered3
May 26, 2024
General Discussion
Forums
Rock Crawling Forums
General Discussion
DNR Immunity Law email campaign
Top