Sentences with phrase «recreational use immunity»

While recreational use immunity may act to prevent some Indiana premises liability lawsuits, the burden rests upon the landowner to prove that immunity should attach, and in many cases, immunity will not be appropriate.

The town argued that it was entitled to recreational use immunity.

The court rejected the government's first argument for immunity but agreed that the government was entitled to recreational use immunity.

Not exact matches

School districts in some states, including all five surveyed, may have additional protection under «recreational use» statutes, which offer immunity from certain claims against landowners who open their property to the public for recreational use.10 In states with broad recreational use statutes, such as Indiana, opening school kitchen facilities could be considered a protected activity under the law, depending on the circumstances of the use and other factors.11 However, in Massachusetts, protection for recreational activities extends only to purposes that are «scientific, educational, environmental, ecological, research, religious, or charitable,» 12 so the state's statute might not apply when districts allow for - profit groups to use school kitchens.

While recreational use statutes and government immunity may come into play, this does not necessarily mean your claim will be unsuccessful.

Recreational use statutes confer immunity on a property owner — a private party or a government agency — who opens up their land for the general recreational enjoyment ofRecreational use statutes confer immunity on a property owner — a private party or a government agency — who opens up their land for the general recreational enjoyment ofrecreational enjoyment of the public.

Washington even allows property owners and occupiers of land certain immunities if they allow the land to be used for recreational purposes.

In order to qualify for this immunity, a landowner must show that they allowed the injured person to use their land for a recreational purpose and did not collect a fee for doing so.

In the case, Johnson v. Gibson, the court determined that the employee was not properly considered an «owner» of the land, and therefore he was not entitled to the immunity afforded to landowners who allow the public to use their land for recreational purposes.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Oregon issued a written opinion in a premises liability case filed against a city employee, holding that the employee was not entitled to immunity under that state's «recreational use» statute.

Thus, the city was entitled to recreational - use immunity.

Under Section 14 -22-10-2 of the Indiana Code, recreational - use immunity is granted to landowners who open their land to the public at no cost for the purpose of «swimming, camping, hiking, sightseeing,» or any other recreational purpose.

Generally speaking, a recreational - use statute provides immunity to landowners who open their land to the public at no cost for recreational purposes.