Landowner's and Responsiblity over Hunters

[hazeleyedhunter]

I had a Question about whither or not Private land owners could be help responsible for Non-Paying hunters on their land. I heard in the state of california they can not be held resposible as long as they don't charge. Is this True or False? If it is true do any of you know where i can go to obtain Information stating this. It will greatly be appreciate. Thanks for all the help thus far.

Wise Men Still SeekHim

 

[SierraExplorer]

I hunt an island for Pheasants- and is free. But I sign (in 4 spots) a 2 page letter and it get sealed away for liability protection agains them.

They have 2 band of yotes on there and I offered to knock some off with my 22-250 and they said no. They even were gona have the County Sheriffs Sniper Team do it as training but could not get an insurance waver from their insurance company. I can see the point of it- but it would of been great local fun!

Dan

 

[wmidbrook]

I'm sure there are 'things' in which a landowner could get charged as a result of someone elses actions.

One example that comes to mind...
A person with permission to tresspass muddies up a creek by 4x4'ing in it. The landowner downstream calls DFG, EPA and complains that their water was unnaturally muddied. The DFGEPA sends the landowner a fine for muddying up waters without a proper permit (some 'wetlands'clause).

I don't have a laundry list of what all a landowner can get charged with--but, in most instances those waivers most hunter's fill out are only to protect the landowner from lawsuits filed against them by the people filing out the form. For example, a hunter has permission to hunt on a landowner's property, trips on a tree trunk lying on the ground that the wind blew over and sues the landowner since he/she 'was negligent' in not removing the tree after a wind-storm....sound ridiculous? Well maybe so, but the courts have ruled in favor of the 'hunter' and not the landowner in many a similar lawsuit.

Most landowners will never have to deal with such matters. But, it can be a risk taken by letting others hunt their property. Fortunately common decency, laws and insurance cover those situations pretty well. That helps us hunters. But, it's still a big reason why lots of landowners have reservations about allowing joe public to hunt their land.

 

[Bill W]

In the state of California there is no landowner liability for negligence if the hurt person is injured in the course of a recreational activity (includes hunting), and if the landowner is not charging for access. Assuming those are the circumstances the landowner is immune from suit and the case is thrown out at the first hearing.

The stories about landowners being successfully sued in this State for situations as described in the post above are wive's tales. (Well, at least since 1963 when the Recreational Use Immunity act was passed in California). It flat out doesn't happen. And since the law has been so well settled for so long I think you'd have a hell of a time finding a contingency fee attorney dumb enough t take such a case even to the point of the first hearing (where it would be promptly thrown out)

The release of liability forms that get filled out are totally unnecessary to eliminate liability so long as the land owner is not charging and is simply allowing people to come on to his land to hunt.

Bill

 

[wmidbrook]

Interesting. You're right that it really provides a lot of protection.

Insurance specifically for covering hunting activities on a property is relatively cheap--per thousand acres you can get it less than a man's daily wage. Coverage is often included in 'blanket type' policies most landowners have anyway. The reason why the hunter specific insurance is relatively inexpensive is that landowners are rarely ever sued by hunters--I'd say the fears landowners have over potential hunting related lawsuites is out of proportion with the actual risk of something like that happening.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

State for situations as described in the post above are wive's tales.[/b]

Well, not quite...

If the landowner knew about that tree that blew over admits it in court, he might be successfully sued...there might be a lot of "if's" that must be met in order for that to happen, but it's still possible.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

The following cases are examples of instances in which the court found a "willful or malicious" failure to guard or warn:

(a) The California Court of Appeal found that a landowner willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn in New v. Consolidated Rock Products Co., (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 681, where the owner of a gravel quarry failed to warn motorcyclists about a 20-foot cliff that was created when the quarry expanded an excavation pit by cutting away a section of a road. The quarry owner knew that recreational motorcyclists regularly used the road.

(b) In Rost v. U.S., (9th Cir. 1986) 803F.2d 448, the U.S. Court of Appeals found the Forest Service liable for injury resulting from an accident involving a bent roadway gate. The damaged gate violated safety regulations. The Forest Service knew of the condition and its dangerousness and had consciously failed to correct it prior to the accident.[/b]

Oh yeah Joe, watch out for the bent gate over in the third pasture while you're there...good luck~!

It's still not an absolute shield. Thus insurance, waivers with exculpatory clauses...etc.


http://www.ridgetrail.org/crusl.htm
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

WHAT ASSURANCE IS THERE FOR LANDOWNERS THAT THE RECREATIONAL USE STATUTE WILL SHIELD THEM FROM LIABILITY?
As the Recreational Use Statute and court cases indicate, there can be a variety of factors working to make the statute applicable or inapplicable in any given situation. Unfortunately, these can never be a guarantee that the owner of a specific parcel of land will be immune from liability for Ridge Trail activities. However, the broad application of the statute to cover all recreational purposes, coupled with the knowledge of the fairly specific situations to which the statute would not apply, give a landowner a reasonably clear idea of what risks of liability would exist. Of course, in spite of the protection provided by the statute, landowners always will be susceptible to being sued. As the law now stands, however, certain prevailing landowners in a suit under the Recreational Use Statute are statutorily entitled to reimbursement for reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in defending the suit under certain circumstances. The statute sets a dollar amount and other limitations on the recovery of such fees, as discussed in the Executive Summary, are set forth in the text of the statute (below).[/b]

 

[Bill W]

Lots of stuff is possible, but in ten years as an attorney and four years before that working in a law firm, I have never seen a case against a landowner that was worth taking on. As you indicated in your post, you need to have "willful" or "malicious" conduct to get around the immunity. That is a hell of a tough hurdle for a plaintiff to get over in any situation that is ever going to occur in allowing hunters to go onto property.

Moreover, the showing of malice or willfulness required to get around the recreational use statute is more than enough to get around any waiver of liability that could be drafted. Said another way, it is against public policy to allow prospective waivers of liability for malicious or willful conduct. Since that is the standard for getting around the immunity statute, any waiver is redundant. JMO

Bill

 

[wmidbrook]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Lots of stuff is possible, but in ten years as an attorney and four years before that working in a law firm, I have never seen a case against a landowner that was worth taking on.[/b]

What's disturbing to me is that there are gold-miners out there trying to make a quick buck vis-a-vis sueing a landowner. At least the attempts you have seen didn't have enough basis for you or the firm you work for to take the case on.

But, there's surely a few 'hungry' lawyers out there that might have taken on a case or two your firm had declined.

Thanks for for your professional insights.

 

[bubba]

I think landowners are more fearful of litigation against them by a neighbor, or passersby, from damage or injury caused by someone hunting on their property.