[Bill Cummings]

Reference chart of states with hold harmless statutes for recreational use of land.
Scroll way down to chart near the middle of the link.
(Next help find actual Acts by each state to be added to the State by State thread)
http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/rakwater/research/Rural_landowner_liability.pdf

[JoeF]

That PDF article of 2002 does not hold what has occurred since 2002.
Someplace in our forum, I posted a reflective note that I had sourced from someplace that now all 51 states have a statue reflecting the topic. So, in our forum, it would great to fulfill Bill C.'s suggestion of a collection of all 51 statutes.

[Rick Masters]

...private landowners who allow open access to their property enjoy near absolute immunity from liability for recreational injuries based on state recreational use statutes.

LANDOWNER LIABILITY for INJURIES
http://www2.borough.kenai.ak.us/planningdept/Trail%20Commission/Topics/TrailTopic4_Liability.htm
This is the fourth in a series of information sheets prepared for the Kenai Peninsula Borough Trails Commission. The information presented is intended to introduce topics of concern in trails planning.

If I open my land up to public recreational use, would I be liable for damages if a recreationist suffers any injury?

Two liability experts, Dr. Ron Kaiser and Dr. Brett A. Wright of George Mason University's Center for Recreation Resources Policy, conducted a review of state statutes and selected court cases from across the nation for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. They found that private landowners who allow open access to their property enjoy near absolute immunity from liability for recreational injuries based on state recreational use statutes.

They found that "...landowners allowing free access to their property have no obligation to inspect the property to discover hidden dangers, warn recreationists of hidden dangers, keep the property safe for recreationists' use or provide assurance of safety to those users. That means these users, such as hunters, fishermen or others, will likely be responsible for any injuries or other harm suffered on private land, Kaiser said."

In addition, Drs. Kaiser and Wright identified a total of only 380 appellate cases in the 50 states involving recreational statutes in the ten-year period 1982-1992. These cases involved both publicly and privately-owned land whose owners were generally not found responsible for any injuries; the "success rate" for the plaintiffs was only 23 percent.

According to the Alaska State Parks & Outdoor Recreation Department, 1992 Recreation Preference Survey, nearly 95 percent of Alaska residents rate hiking and walking as their second favorite activity. Walking, jogging, and bicycling are the outdoor activities most frequently enjoyed by the residents. Fishing (first ranked), hunting, canoeing, dog mushing, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and other outdoor activities which depend on trails are also important activities to residents and visitors.

While many trails are located on publicly owned land, other trails cross private property with or without the property owner’s permission. Because land status and uses can easily change, many private and public groups are working to dedicate routes for existing trails and to protect land for future trails.

Liability insurance premiums for commercial recreational providers have risen in the last decade but appear to be fueled by the fear of the unusual multi-million dollar lawsuits experienced in the medical and product liability fields. However, expert opinions from around the nation say the "so-called liability crisis" is more mythical than real; landowners who allow public access to their property enjoy near absolute immunity from liability for recreational injuries as determined by their state recreational use statute.

[Bill Cummings]

On line free downloadable hold harmless forms state by state.
Investigate the feasibility of creating your own hold harmless agreement that may bolster any existing State Hold Harmless Act.
This to allay persistent fears of a landowner and allowing the landowner to have in hand a signed hold harmless agreement between actual named parties:
[url]This http://www.formfindr.com/hold-harmless- ... 2utf5sz9i2[/url]

[Rick Masters]

Great find, Bill. In talking with other recreational hang glider pilots, I have received unanimous agreement that a national hang gliding organization's first priority should be providing an info package to pilots that simply includes their state's landowner liability code and a Hold Harmless Agreement.

Some states like Utah allow for an exclusive access arrangement between the landowner and visiting pilots or clubs for the payment of one dollar per year. In these situations, the club can spell out how it will control access and regulate the site. This assures the land owner that only experienced and qualified hang glider pilots will be practicing their sport from his land yet does not affect his liability.

I contend that such a plan will frequently satisfy a landowner. I will not be surprised if landowners finds this strategy superior to any insurance scheme because all insurance plans have limit caps whereas a state's recreational liability release prevents a lawsuit altogether.

[Bill Cummings]

Arizona has been proving to be a tough nut to crack in my search for "Hold Harmless" legislation.
I did run across this that applies to Trust Lands.
https://land.az.gov/faq/recreational-permit-faq

Question: What does my Recreation Permit allow me to do on trust lands?
Show Answer:
Your recreation permit allows you to enjoy non-consumptive recreational activities including: hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, picnics, photography, bird watching, sightseeing, camping (limited to 14 days per year), and limited off highway vehicle use (restricted to designated roads and trails), for non-commercial and non-competitive purposes.
A Trust Land Recreation Permit does not permit target shooting, paintball, airsoft, recreational flying (i.e. ultralite aircraft), vehicular 'rock hopping', sand railing, fireworks, or congregating in groups larger than 19 people . Visiting prehistoric and historic cultural or archaeological sites, Metal detecting, Collecting or removing natural products (rocks, stone, soil, fossils, mineral specimens, cacti, saguaro or cholla skeletons, plants (live or dead), or firewood for home use, are all prohibited. Nor does it permit any activity that would otherwise be illegal or conflict with local laws or ordinances. A Recreation Permit does not authorize use of non-state lands such as military, federal, Tribal, or private lands.

[JoeF]

...it will control access and regulate the site

The "it" was a local club. I am giving high pause here. If an entity or person becomes a quasi premise manager and crosses into the realm of inviting and charging other people, then my take over immunity statutes is that the club would not be immune to liability. If the base or root landowner agreed to another entity to become premise manager relative to an activity, then that next entity that "controls access" and does "regulate" may well be close to exempting itself from the statute's immunity. Differently, I could see a club simply staying an information base for recreational hang gliders, but not controlling, not inviting, and not charging anything for "use" of some local recreational site; club dues would have formally nothing to do with use of permitted sites; club would not "control" members' use of a site. Club might discipline member for unsafe conduct, but not for using a site.

I am guessing a careful review of cases to see what happens when a club invites, controls, connects charges with sites. All such seems to smell simply like a quasi premise manager setting itself up TO BE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE IMMUNITY STATUTES. If my guess is correct, then I would not present such quasi premise managership to a landowner.

Rather, the landowner to stay immune and the club to stay immune, my take is that open recreation uncharged and uninvited would be the course. Just permitted. A recreational hang glider club could do a great deal of good without becoming quasi premise managers. Club could volunteer site cleaning and permitted special works. Club could provide great sources of information and mutual support among members. Club could have membership dues, but not related to site control and use. Club could have many flows that advance the skills and safety of its members. But the control of who flies recreationally or not at a site seems to open up a legal space that is beyond the intent of the recreational immunity statutes. The matter is different for commercially run "recreation" parks; then a business is liable for things that may happen. If a club is purely recreational wanting to use land for recreational purposes while keeping the same immunity as the permitting landowner, then the club ought not start acting as a business or event organizer in relation to the property. Hopefully a lawyer or two will come in on this challenge. I am not a lawyer and pretend no expertise over the question. But I urge US Hawks to get very clear on the question. As a recreation hang glider landing uninvited and without charge at site A-LZ, I would recognize that the property owner or premise manager was immune from liability from incidents I might cause on A-LZ; but if I were invited and maybe charged to hang glide (charged even by value of membership deals), then a new tighter relationship would be constructed---guardianship, benefits exchange on action-quality thresholds, etc. Club may not want to become an inviting guardian with benefits exchanged (forms of barter, etc) where duties of care about safety are forced ... and where liability is taken then by Club. The $1 deal with root owner for permitting persons name might be very different from exchanging premise managership contracts. Club had better discover just what it wants to be and not be.
How to have Club stay immune? How to recreate under permit only (not being invited and not being charged): individual persons, but not quasi corporations that control, invite, charge.
Others may explore this matter more clearly than I have done, so far.

"I am going to A[Launch at 7 a.m.. Will you be there? " Two recreational hang glider pilots fully self-regulating meet at A-Launch. One is Club Member and the other is not Club Member. Both land at A-LZ. A-LZ owner did not invite and does not charge for landig at A-LZ; landowner is liability immune. Club puts in its newsletter that Member and Non-Member had great flights, but Club disciplined Member for having smoked at A-LZ which broke Club site-use conduct rules. Club does not manage or control A-LZ but cares about A-LZ. Club members clean A-LZ and urges members not to smoke or party at A-LZ. Non-Member smoked also at A-LZ; Club has no membership way of disciplining Non-Member who smoked at A-LZ. Club cannot keep Member nor Non-Member from landing at A-LZ next time around. Club could eventually cancel Membership of Member, if things got worse. Club could choose to keep Non-Member as Non-Member. Member or Non-Member could ruin the "permit" for recreation at A-LZ. Communicating to discovered users of A-LZ the vulnerabilities of the site could be a task of Club.

??? Not sure.

For example, American Kitefliers Association or American Modelers

Better get the quasi premise managership sorted out relative to these state statutes.

[JoeF]

Bill C, re: Arizona, will the following page lead to something:

https://www.azag.gov/sgo-opinions/immunity-recreational-use-aircraft-state-trust-lands

Bill C, by "aircraft" .... I would be careful to discover if Arizona distinguishes matters as the FAA does. Maybe by "aircraft" Arizona is looking at powered aircraft (perhaps including powered trikes or microlights, etc.) and leaving hang gliders as bicycles as vehicles as does FAA. Mechanically a toy kite has a person as the pilot of the flight system. What is the intent when an agent writes "aircraft" in their regulations?

A.R.S. § 33-1551, commonly known as the “recreational use statute,”

[Rick Masters]

...see what happens when a club invites, controls, connects charges with sites.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=33876&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80

[magentabluesky]

Recreational Use Immunity Statutes Fifty State Survey

Recreational Use Immunity Statutes for the StateCalifornia Code, Government Code - GOV § 831.7

Recreational Use Immunity Statutes for Private PropertyCalifornia Code, Civil Code - CIV § 846

Articles:
California’s recreational use and trail immunity laws by Jim Porter

Premises Liability Part I: Recreational Immunity and Expert Witnesses in California By Kat S. Hatziavramidis, Esq.

Recreational Immunity by R. Sam