The purpose of this subchapter is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes.
The Arkansas Recreational-Use Statute: Past, Present, and Future Application for Arkansas Landowners and Recreational Users of Land, 60 Ark. L. Rev. 849.
Case Notes
In General.
Since the purpose of this subchapter is to encourage landowners (including the United States) to make areas available to the public for recreational purposes and thus limit their liability, it is reasonable to conclude that a condition or structure which is natural, such as high cliffs, should not be considered ultra-hazardous within the meaning of the § 18-11-307(1) exception to this subchapter. Roten v. United States, 850 F. Supp. 786 (W.D. Ark.), aff'd without op., 39 F.3d 1184 (8th Cir. 1994).
Injured persons met their burden of proof under the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute, § 18-11-301 et seq., by showing that the landowners maliciously failed to guard or warn against a known ultra-hazardous condition and, therefore, the landowners were not immune from liability to persons entering the landowners'
property for recreational purposes, as provided in the immunity exception under § 18-11-307(1).
Carr v. Nance, 2010 Ark. 497, 370 S.W.3d 826 (2010).
Immunity under the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute, §§ 18-11-301 — 18-11-307, is in derogation of the common law, and any statute in derogation of the common law will be strictly construed.
Roeder v. United States, 2014 Ark. 156, 432 S.W.3d 627 (2014).
Applicability.
In an action arising from the deadly flooding of a federal campground, district court properly granted the United States'
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the Federal Tort Claims Act removed immunity from the United States only in those circumstances in which a private landowner would be liable, and an individual landowner would have received immunity from plaintiffs'
tort claims under the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute, § 18-11-301 et seq.Moss v. United States, 895 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2018).
Cited:
Mandel v. United States, 793 F.2d 964 (8th Cir. 1986); Carlton ex rel. Carlton v. Cleburne County, 93 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 1996).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Moses v. Bridgeman, 139 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. 2003).
Moses v. Bridgeman, 139 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 4ד56(c), arguing that landowners do not have a duty to supervise their guests’ children or to warn them of obvious dangers, and in the alternative, that appellant’s claims are barred by the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 18-11-301 et seq. (1987), because it…”
Carr v. Nance, 2010 Ark. 497, 370 S.W.3d 826. · cites it 2דThe defense asserted that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof under the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated section 18-11-301 et seq., which generally grants a landowner immunity from liability to persons entering the…”
Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2ד§ 375.251 (West 2000); Ga.Code Ann. § 27-3-1 (1997), §§ 51-3-20 to -26 (2000); Haw.”
Roeder v. United States, 2014 Ark. 156, 432 S.W.3d 627. “3 The United States asserted that subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking under the FTCA because the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute (“ARUS” or the “Act”), codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 18-11-301 to -307, provides the government with immunity.”
Roten v. United States, 850 F. Supp. 786 (W.D. Ark. 1994). · cites it 2ד§ 18-11-301. 3. On January 10, 1994, this Court entered an Order granting partial summary judgment in this matter.”
Shackelford v. Patterson, 936 S.W.2d 748 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 2ד(7) The recreational-defense statutes [ Ark. Code Ann. § 18-11-301 to 18-11-307 (1987 & Supp.”
Jason Carlton v. Cleburne Cnty., AR, 93 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 1996). “Ark.Code Ann. § 18-11-301. Specifically, the Act provides that “an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the premises to…”
Powell v. ISC North, LLC, 2017 Ark. App. 394, 524 S.W.3d 458. · cites it 3ד§§ 18-11-301 to -307. Affirmed. ABRAMSON, HARRISON, and HIXSON, JJ.”
Hollonbeck v. Torrey, 171 F.R.D. 244 (E.D. Ark. 1997). “” ACA 18-11-301. The heart of the Statute provides that, with a couple of specific exceptions, “an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure,…”
Hunt v. Int'l Ass'n of Lions Clubs, No. 5:21-cv-05100 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 7, 2021). · cites it 2דUnder the ARUS “an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the premises to persons entering for recreational purposes” unless…”
Allen v. Nature Conservancy, No. 4:23-cv-00661 (E.D. Ark. July 24, 2024). · cites it 2דThe Court granted TNC’s motion to dismiss, finding that it was entitled to the immunity provided by the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 18-11-301 et seq. (“ARUS”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.