Avoiding premises liability under Idaho’s recreational use statute

A recent Idaho Supreme Court decision offers a helpful primer on Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute for property managers and landowners who make land – or are considering doing so – available to the public for recreational purposes. The Recreational Use Statute provides a limitation of liability to the landowner under such circumstances – meaning they “owe no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity” – so long as the property is made available for recreational purposes “without charge.”

In the case, Martin Hayes v. City of Plummer, the property manager – a school district – paid for all the utilities, performed ongoing maintenance and managed the scheduling of a park on the property owned by the City of Plummer. The plaintiff, who was injured while stumbling on uneven ground on park grounds, argued that performance of these services constituted “compensation” that the City received from the school district in exchange for use of the park and that therefore limitation of liability under the Recreational Use Statute was not proper. Under the statute, immunity is only available to property owners who do not receive “compensation” or “charge” for use of their land. The park at issue was open to the public without charge.

The Court considered several instances in which courts had previously ruled on the compensation exception in Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute.

• In the first case, the court found no immunity from liability protection where a landowner charged a vehicle entry fee.

• In the second case, the court found that a state snowmobile registration fee that all snowmobile owners are required to by law to pay did not erode a county’s immunity even though 85% of the plaintiff’s registration fee went to the county’s parks program

• In the third case, the court found that the landowner was not immune from liability under the statute because it regulates access by selling passes, even though the plaintiff used a friend’s pass and did not pay for a pass himself.

In the latest case, the Court found that “the character of the property as a gratuitously accessible public recreational space is dispositive when determining whether the compensation exception to Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute applies.” Since the city and school district did not charge the public a fee for use and enjoyment of the park, the limitation of liability to the landowner under the statute was appropriate, and the compensation exception did not apply.

The lesson to all landholders and property managers who manage land made available to the public for recreational purposes is thus clear. So long as you do not charge users a fee for the recreational use of your land, you are protected from liability under the Idaho Recreational Use Statute. And this will remain true even in circumstances where the landowner receives benefits under an arrangement with a third party who “pays for all maintenance, water and electric utilities; has made significant improvements to the facilities, maintains property insurance for those improvements; and controls the scheduling for organized events.”