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="quartz" data-source="post: 1286083" data-attributes="member: 17561"><p>Another response</p><p></p><p>Thank you for drawing your concern to my attention. </p><p></p><p>The state has had a long history of encouraging access to land for recreational purposes - in 1967 we instituted the limited recreational liability statute that you reference. The core of that statute is: "any public or private landowners... who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation... without charging a fee... shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users." This statute flipped common law on its head and created very strong protections for landowners when they allowed the public to use their land, free of charge, for recreational purposes.</p><p></p><p>There are three limited conditions to which liability will attach to the landowner in the case of such a recreational injury.</p><p></p><p>1) A fee is attached to the usage of the land (although there are certain usage charges in statute that do not incur liability)</p><p>2) The injuries are intentionally inflicted</p><p>3) The injuries are caused by a known, dangerous artificial AND latent condition</p><p></p><p>In your email you bring up question about the third instance in which liability can fall to the landowner. It is important to understand that all three of those conditions must be met, the absence of any one element means that there is no liability. Just as background, latent conditions are those that represent dangerous conditions that are "not readily apparent to the recreational user" (see Chamberlain v. Department. of Transportation (Wash.App.Div. 1 1995)) and artificial conditions are those that are created by humans as opposed to natural conditions (see Davis v. State of Washington in 2001). Obviously the meanings of all of these provisions have been litigated. </p><p></p><p>It is highly unlikely that the Legislature would completely remove these provisions; but with that being said, if you have a particular type of condition that you would like to see exempted - the state has done that in the past. Like in 2003 when the Legislature, including myself, unanimously passed HB 1195 which expanded recreational immunity to landowners who provided rock climbing opportunities. This was a bi-partisan bill expanding recreational liability immunity and working to expand recreational access. It is now current law: <a href="http://wsldocs/2003-04/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202003/1195-S.SL.pdf" target="_blank">http://wsldocs/2003-04/Pdf/Bills/Session Law 2003/1195-S.SL.pdf</a>. </p><p></p><p>My door is always open so if you would like to bring a specific condition to me regarding recreational immunity I would be happy to consider it. The feedback I get from the folks at home help guide my decisions when I am in Olympia.</p><p></p><p>Sincerely,</p><p></p><p>John McCoy</p><p>Stat Representative, 38th LD</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="quartz, post: 1286083, member: 17561"] Another response Thank you for drawing your concern to my attention. The state has had a long history of encouraging access to land for recreational purposes - in 1967 we instituted the limited recreational liability statute that you reference. The core of that statute is: "any public or private landowners... who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation... without charging a fee... shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users." This statute flipped common law on its head and created very strong protections for landowners when they allowed the public to use their land, free of charge, for recreational purposes. There are three limited conditions to which liability will attach to the landowner in the case of such a recreational injury. 1) A fee is attached to the usage of the land (although there are certain usage charges in statute that do not incur liability) 2) The injuries are intentionally inflicted 3) The injuries are caused by a known, dangerous artificial AND latent condition In your email you bring up question about the third instance in which liability can fall to the landowner. It is important to understand that all three of those conditions must be met, the absence of any one element means that there is no liability. Just as background, latent conditions are those that represent dangerous conditions that are "not readily apparent to the recreational user" (see Chamberlain v. Department. of Transportation (Wash.App.Div. 1 1995)) and artificial conditions are those that are created by humans as opposed to natural conditions (see Davis v. State of Washington in 2001). Obviously the meanings of all of these provisions have been litigated. It is highly unlikely that the Legislature would completely remove these provisions; but with that being said, if you have a particular type of condition that you would like to see exempted - the state has done that in the past. Like in 2003 when the Legislature, including myself, unanimously passed HB 1195 which expanded recreational immunity to landowners who provided rock climbing opportunities. This was a bi-partisan bill expanding recreational liability immunity and working to expand recreational access. It is now current law: [url]http://wsldocs/2003-04/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202003/1195-S.SL.pdf[/url]. My door is always open so if you would like to bring a specific condition to me regarding recreational immunity I would be happy to consider it. The feedback I get from the folks at home help guide my decisions when I am in Olympia. Sincerely, John McCoy Stat Representative, 38th LD [/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