Provides for limitation of liability of a landowner of property used for recreational purposes and award of attorney fees and court costs under certain circumstances. (8/1/20)
If enacted, SB 94 will reinforce existing protections for landowners against legal claims from injuries sustained on their property during recreational use. This could encourage more landowners to open their lands for recreational access, potentially increasing outdoor activities and tourism in the state. The bill is positioned to affect property laws pertinent to land management and liability, reflecting a balance between fostering recreational opportunities and safeguarding landowners from unwarranted legal risks.
Senate Bill 94, introduced by Senator Allain, aims to limit the liability of landowners who allow their property to be used for recreational purposes. This includes both urban and rural land as well as any associated water bodies. Under current law, landowners are not liable for injuries or damages that may occur when individuals use their land for recreational activities, except under certain specified conditions. The proposed modifications would extend these liability limitations, specifically defining 'land' to include water bottoms and providing a framework for attorney fee awards in civil cases where a court finds the landowner immune from suit.
The sentiment surrounding SB 94 appears to be positive among pro-business and recreational groups, who advocate for less restriction on land use and liability concerns. Supporters argue it encourages landowners to provide safe and open environments for the public to enjoy. Conversely, any discussion around liability limitations often stirs caution among legal experts who worry about safety and accountability—which might lead to a more cautious view among those concerned with land safety regulations.
Although there are no records of significant opposition to SB 94 in its current format, potential contention could arise from future discussions about how the liability limitations might influence the safety of recreational activities on private lands. Critics may argue that while limiting liability is crucial for encouraging land use, it could inadvertently lead to less incentive for landowners to maintain safe environments, should they face fewer repercussions for accidents occurring on their property.