Sentences with phrase «recreational use statutes»

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 of the public.

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

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.

Since this was not the case, the recreational use statute protected the government agency in charge of the pond.

A recreational use statute is common in most states, and it acts to limit the liability of landowners, including the state or federal government, in order to encourage them to keep their land open for recreational enjoyment.

In ruling against the plaintiff, the court cited the state's «recreational use statute.»

She argued that the Fair was not engaging in «recreational» activity but instead was engaging in «commercial» activity, removing the case from the reach of the recreational use statute.

These cases tend to be a bit more difficult, since laws like the recreational use statute may come into play.

The court based its decision on the state's «recreational use statute.»

Under Florida's recreational use statute, Florida Statute 375.251, some landowners who allow others to use their property for recreational purposes are immune from liability.

Like North Dakota, Indiana also has a recreational use statute that may act to protect the owners of land in certain situations.

So the federal court paused the case and asked the Oregon court for advice on interpreting the Oregon recreational use statute that was at issue in the case.

The Oregon court began by noting that under the state's recreational use statute, a landowner who opens up his land for the recreational use of the general public is not generally liable for injuries sustained by the public.

There is an exception to this general rule, however, and that lies within the Florida recreational use statute, F.S. 375 - 251.

The plaintiff claimed that the recreational use statute did not apply because the act of using a rope swing was not specifically listed in the recreational use statute as a covered activity.

Not exact matches

The court noted that the relevant state statute defined recreational uses as «including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, horseback riding, bicycling, water sports, winter sports, snowmobiling, [etc.]»

However, the use must be a recreational one for the statute to apply.

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.

The city asked the court to dismiss the case based on the recreational - use statute.

The court disagreed, pointing to language in the statute defining the term «outdoor recreational activity» as including, but not being limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, horseback riding, bicycling, water sports, winter sports, snowmobiling...» The court explained that using a rope swing to fling oneself into the water is sufficiently close to the listed activities that it should be covered under the «included, but not limited to» language.

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

For instance, the North Carolina statute provides that the permit requirements for the use of drones do not apply to model aircraft that are flown solely for hobby or recreational purposes without compensation.