Relating To Tort Liability.
The bill introduces several significant changes to existing laws, including the provision that individuals who enter private property for recreational purposes will have no cause of action for injuries sustained while on the premises, unless otherwise exempted by law. Furthermore, the bill mandates that courts must award attorneys' fees and costs to landowners if a lawsuit brought against them is deemed unreasonable. This could lead to a substantial reduction in frivolous lawsuits, thereby incentivizing landowners to open up their properties for public use.
House Bill 12 aims to amend the existing landowner liability law, codified as Chapter 520 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, to encourage landowners to make their properties available for public recreational use. The bill addresses concerns that landowners are often hesitant to allow public access due to the fear of litigation resulting from injuries that might occur on their property. By clarifying the legal protections for landowners, the legislation seeks to diminish this reluctance and enhance public access to land and water areas for recreational purposes.
Overall, HB 12 represents a legislative effort to balance the interests of landowners with the public's desire for increased access to recreational spaces. By potentially reducing the legal risks associated with opening private land for public enjoyment, the bill could foster a culture of sharing outdoor spaces. However, the implications of such protections for landowners might provoke debates about individual rights, accountability, and the ability of individuals to seek justice for injuries sustained on private properties.
A notable point of contention surrounding HB 12 is the inherent assumption of risk clause, which establishes that individuals participating in outdoor recreational activities acknowledge and accept the risks associated with these activities. Critics may argue that this could overly protect landowners at the expense of individuals' rights to seek redress for legitimate injuries. Additionally, the bill's attempt to narrowly define 'recreational purpose' and 'recreational user' may lead to legal ambiguities and future disputes over what constitutes acceptable recreational activities on private land.