Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557f (2026)

Landowner liability for recreational use of land. Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in sections 52-557f to 52-557i, inclusive:

(1) “Charge” means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land;

(2) “Land” means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty, except that if the owner is a municipality, political subdivision of the state, municipal corporation, special district or water or sewer district: (A) “Land” does not include a swimming pool, playing field or court, playground, building with electrical service, or machinery when attached to the realty, that is also within the possession and control of the municipality, political subdivision of the state, municipal corporation, special district or water or sewer district; and (B) “road” does not include a paved public through road that is open to the public for the operation of four-wheeled private passenger motor vehicles;

(3) “Owner” means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises. “Owner” includes, but is not limited to, a municipality, political subdivision of the state, municipal corporation, special district or water or sewer district;

(4) “Recreational purpose” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: Hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, snow skiing, ice skating, sledding, hang gliding, sport parachuting, hot air ballooning, bicycling and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic or scientific sites.

(1971, P.A. 249, S. 1; 440, S. 2; P.A. 77-393; Oct. Sp. Sess. P.A. 79-12, S. 2, 3; P.A. 82-160, S. 227; P.A. 88-204; P.A. 90-310, S. 3; P.A. 11-61, S. 139; 11-141, S. 19; 11-211, S. 1.)

History: Later 1971 act (P.A. 440) removed snowmobiling from definition of “recreational purpose”; P.A. 77-393 included cutting and removing wood in definition of “recreational purpose”; October, 1979, P.A. 79-12 removed cutting and removing wood from definition of “recreational purpose”; P.A. 82-160 alphabetized the defined terms; P.A. 88-204 included hang gliding and hot air ballooning in definition of “recreational purpose”; P.A. 90-310 in Subdiv. (4) added sport parachuting to the definition of “recreational purpose”; P.A. 11-61 redefined “charge” in Subdiv. (1) and “owner” in Subdiv. (3); P.A. 11-141 redefined “charge” in Subdiv. (1) and “owner” in Subdiv. (3); P.A. 11-211 redefined “land” in Subdiv. (2), “owner” in Subdiv. (3) and “recreational purpose” in Subdiv. (4).

See Sec. 52-557k re liability of landowner who allows persons to harvest firewood, fruits or vegetables or engage in maple-sugaring activities.

Cited. 194 C. 129; 219 C. 914; 221 C. 256; decision reconsidered and overruled, see 238 C. 653; 226 C. 446; 238 C. 633; Id., 687. Specially chartered municipal corporation water supply company not immune from liability when bicyclist rode her bike into gate on company property; gate was maintained in an unsafe and dangerous condition and maintenance of gate was inextricably linked to proprietary function of operating the company. 309 C. 282.

Cited. 7 CA 164. Sec. 52-557f et seq. apply to all landowners including governmental entities. 24 CA 592. Cited. 39 CA 280; 45 CA 17.

Subdiv. (3):

Held municipalities are not owners within meaning of section, reconsidering and overruling decision in 221 C. 256. 238 C. 653.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2022 · leading case: Conway v. Town of Wilton, 680 A.2d 242 (Conn. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Conway v. Town of Wilton, 680 A.2d 242 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 11× “Today, we reconsider Manning , conclude that it was not properly decided and, accordingly, overrule it.”

Scrapchansky v. Town of Plainfield, 627 A.2d 1329 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 11× “The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that, pursuant to the Connecticut Recreational Land Use Act (act); General Statutes §§ 52-557f through 52-557i; 1 the defendants were *448 immune from liability for the plaintiffs injuries.”

State v. Salamon, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× “2d 242 (overruling prior interpretation of General Statutes § 52-557f [3] as applied to municipalities).”

Genco v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 508 A.2d 58 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 6× “4 Contrary to what the plaintiff argues, signs posted by the defendant restricting use in certain locations on the lake (near a dangerous waterfall overlook, for example) do not put a material fact in issue.”

State v. Courchesne, 816 A.2d 562 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “2d 242 (1996) (interpreting General Statutes § 52-557f in light of purpose to encourage private landowners to make land available for recreational use); Genovese v.”

City of Waterbury v. Town of Washington, 800 A.2d 1102 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “Wilton, supra, 681 (overruling prior interpretation of General Statutes § 52-557f [3] as applied to municipalities).”

State v. Peeler, 140 A.3d 811 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 2× “to 1995) § 52-557f et seq., and, therefore, entitled to immunity from liability for injuries occurring on land the municipality holds open to the public for recreational use.”

Stuart v. Stuart, 996 A.2d 259 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “Wilton, supra, 662-63 (overruling prior interpretation of General Statutes § 52-557f [3] as applied to municipalities).”

Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “§§ 33-41-101 to -106 (West 1999); Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. §§ 52-557f to -557k (West 1991); Del.”

Kimberly Ann Sallee, Individually & as Next Friend of Lucas Gregory Durkop & Maria Christina Rivera, Matthew James Sallee, & James Allan Sallee v. Matthew R. Stewart & Diana Stewart D/B/A Stewartland Holsteins, 827 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2013). “2011); Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 52-557f(4) (West Supp.”

R.C. Equity Grp., LLC v. Zoning Comm'n, 939 A.2d 1122 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× “2d 399 (1992), and conclude that municipalities are not land “owners” for liability purposes under General Statutes § 52-557f (3). See generally Simko v.”

Manning v. Barenz, 590 A.2d 980 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “Noting that General Statutes § 52-557f et seq. granted an “owner of land” immunity for liability for injuries, the court ruled that the town, as a landowner, was within the protection of the statute.”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557f(3) — 1 case

R.C. Equity Grp., LLC v. Zoning Comm'n, 939 A.2d 1122 (Conn. 2008). “2d 399 (1992), and conclude that municipalities are not land “owners” for liability purposes under General Statutes § 52-557f (3). See generally Simko v.”

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557f(4) — 2 cases

Jennett v. United States, 597 F. Supp. 110 (D. Conn. 1984).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557f(l) — 1 case

Frances Howard v. United States of Am. Us Sailing Ass'n, Inc. Waikiki Yacht Club, a Hawaii Corp. Guy S. Fleming, 181 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999).

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.