recreational use immunity in Washington

2016It held that clearly, the statute, as amended, includes public landowners and occupiers within the recreational use immunity from liability. \± The court specifically stated, "If the legislature intended the liability limitations to apply to public owners only as to incidents arising from the use of ATV and snowmobiles, it should have used more precise language to establish such an intent." Id.

2016No. 73449-1-1/8 history of the 1979 amendments, which confirmed that the addition of "any lands whether rural or urban" applied only to private landowners.3 Archer asserts: McCarver's statement that "[cjlearly, the statute, as amended, includes public landowners and occupiers within the recreational use immunity from liability, 92 Wn.2d at 376 , should be clarified because it has fueled the legend that the Washington Legislature in 1972 and 1979 expanded recreational use immunity to cover all recreation activities commonly conducted outdoors on all public lands.

2000Under the recreational use immunity statute, the injury-causing condition is “the specific object or instrumentality that caused the injury, viewed in relation to other external circumstances in which the instrumentality is situated or operates.” Ravenscroft, 136 Wn.2d at 921 (citing Van Dinter, 121 Wn.2d at 43 ).

2000Under the recreational use immunity statute, the injury-causing condition is "the specific object or instrumentality that caused the injury, viewed in relation to other external circumstances in which the instrumentality is situated or operates." Ravenscroft, 136 Wash.2d at 921 , 969 P.2d 75 (citing Van Dinter, 121 Wash.2d at 43 , 846 P.2d 522 ).

2000Cultee, 95 Wn.

2000Cultee, 95 Wash.App. at 517 , 977 P.2d 15 .

2020App. 907 , 396 P.3d 389 (2017), rev’d, 190 Wn.2d 526 , 415 P.3d 246 (2018).

2020App. 907 , 396 P.3d 389 (2017), rev’d, 190 Wn.2d 526 , 415 P.3d 246 (2018).

2020In Plano, the fee generating area was a dock that charged moorage fees to all boats docking overnight. 103 Wn.

2020Schwartz moved to dismiss the County’s recreational use immunity defense based on the recreational use statute and this court’s decision in Lockner v. Pierce County, 198 Wn.

2020App. 907 , 396 P.3d 389 (2017), rev’d, 190 Wn.2d 526 , 415 P.3d 246 (2018).

2013App. 398, 409 , 945 P.2d 208 (1997). 5 Our review of the record shows material fact issues on the question of whether the whirlpool area was open to the public for recreation on the injury date. -4- 68156-7-1/5 The jury answered questions in the special verdict form6 that addressed the recreational use immunity and common law negligence issues.7 Hofstetter prevailed on the issue of recreational use immunity: Question No. 1: At the time of Plaintiff's accident, did the City of Bellingham allow the public to use the Whirlpool Falls area of Whatcom Falls Park for outdoor recreation?

2000Under the recreational use immunity statute, the injury-causing condition is "the specific object or instrumentality that caused the injury, viewed in relation to other external circumstances in which the instrumentality is situated or operates." Ravenscroft, 136 Wash.2d at 921 , 969 P.2d 75 (citing Van Dinter, 121 Wash.2d at 43 , 846 P.2d 522 ).

2000Ravenscroft, 136 Wash.2d at 922 , 969 P.2d 75 .

1995Cf. McCarver v. Manson Park & Recreation Dist., 92 Wn.2d 370, 377 , 597 P.2d 1362 (1979) (declining to impose a limiting construction differentiating land classifications based on primary and secondary uses); Gaeta v. Seattle City Light, 54 Wn.

1995For purposes of the recreational use immunity statute, "latent” has been defined as "not readily apparent to the recreational user.” Van Dinter v. Kennewick, 121 Wn.2d 38, 45 , 846 P.2d 522 (1993); Gaeta, 54 Wn.