Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

TO: Professor Smith

FROM: Stacy Farmer, Section R-3


DATE: August 30, 2007
RE: Tanaka – Recreational Use Statute

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is likely to be afforded

immunity for Ms. Tanaka’s injuries sustained at Gifford Pinchot

State Park, because Ms. Tanaka was not charged a fee for her

planned recreational use in the park.

Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA) was designed

to encourage landowners to open their land and water “for

recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons

entering thereon for such purposes”(§477.1). The RULWA is

devised of the following elements. Initially there must be an

owner of land. For our case, an owner is defined as an “occupant

or person in control of the premises” (§477.2.2), and land is

defined as “land, roads, watercourses, private ways and

buildings and structures and machinery or equipment when

attached to the realty” (§477.2.1) as well as land “leased to

the State or any subdivision for recreational purposes”

(§477.5). Next the person may be “directly or indirectly invited

or permitted to use” the land by the owner (§477.4) for

“recreational purposes” (§477.2.3). There may not be a charge

for the use of the land, which is defined as an “admission price

or fee for invitation or permission to enter the land”

(§477.2.4). It is not “deemed a charge” if the owner “leases

1
land to the state for recreation purposes” (477.6.2). Finally

the owner cannot willfully or maliciously fail “to warn or guard

against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity”

(477.6.1). If an owner satisfies the elements then he does not

have a “duty of care to keep the premises safe” (§477.3;

§477.4.1) or “to give warning of a dangerous condition, use,

structure, or activity on the land” (§477.3) and will not “incur

liability for any injury to persons or property” (§477.4.3).

The Commonwealth owns and operates Gifford Pinchot State

Park, which primary use is for recreational purposes. Ms. Tanaka

entered the park for recreational purposes on June 13, 2007. Ms.

Tanaka stopped by the Ranger’s station to rent a sailboat for

$10 for use on Pinchot Lake. Ms. Tanaka has not indicated that

she was charged for entering the park or use of the lake. Under

the RULWA, the State will not incur liability for injuries

(§477.3; §477.4.1) or for failure to maintain a safe premises if

a person “enters” the land “for recreational purposes” and

“without charge”. Furthermore Ms. Tanaka has not implied any

intentions of “willful or malicious failure to guard or warn

against” the weak board that broke on the dock.

Therefore the Commonwealth is likely to be afforded

immunity for Ms. Tanaka’s injuries under the RULWA, because Ms.

Tanaka was not charged a fee for her planned recreational use in

the state park.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi