(a) Except as provided in section
52-557h, an owner of land who makes all or any part of the land available to the public without charge, rent, fee or other commercial service for recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep the land, or the part thereof so made available, 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 land to persons entering for recreational purposes.
(b) Except as provided in section 52-557h, an owner of land who, either directly or indirectly, invites or permits without charge, rent, fee or other commercial service any person to use the land, or part thereof, for recreational purposes does not thereby: (1) Make any representation that the premises are safe for any purpose; (2) confer upon the person who enters or uses the land for recreational purposes the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; or (3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of the owner.
(c) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased to the state or any subdivision thereof for recreational purposes.
(1971, P.A. 249, S. 2–4; P.A. 73-70, S. 1, 2; P.A. 82-160, S. 228.)
History: P.A. 73-70 deleted language limiting applicability to owners of “five or more acres” of land and specified that landowner may make “all or any part” of land available for public use without liability; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section.
Cited. 204 C. 435. Applies to all municipal and private landowners. 221 C. 256; decision reconsidered and overruled, see 238 C. 653. Cited. 226 C. 446; 238 C. 653; Id., 687.
Cited. 7 CA 164. Void for vagueness doctrine does not require prior warning of civil immunity to potential claimants. 10 CA 86. Sec. 52-557f et seq. apply to all landowners including governmental entities; municipality's immunity under section extends to its employees. 24 CA 592. Cited. Id., 832; 39 CA 280; 45 CA 17.
State enjoys same immunity from suit as private persons as long as it makes its land available for recreational purposes free of charge. 52 CS 562.
Notes of Decisions
Scrapchansky v. Town of Plainfield, 627 A.2d 1329 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 21× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted the defendants’ *449 motion for summary judgment because: (1) the defendants had not made the field “available to the public” within the meaning of § 52-557g (a); and (2) an organized league baseball game is…”
Conway v. Town of Wilton, 680 A.2d 242 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 17× “The defendants moved for summary judgment claiming immunity under General Statutes § 52-557g, the immunity provision of the Connecticut Recreational *656 Land Use Act (act), General Statutes § 52-557Í et seq.”
Genco v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 508 A.2d 58 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 15× “The defendant moved for summary judgment under General Statutes § 52-557g, 2 alleging that there was *166 no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Martel v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n, 881 A.2d 194 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 6× “eek damages resulting from the “condition of natural land or unimproved property” within the meaning of § 52-557n (b) (1); and (2) the defendants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because mountain biking is an inherently hazardous sport, the plaintiff was a licensee on…”
Manning v. Barenz, 590 A.2d 980 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 21× “The trial court concluded that the defendant municipal employees and the defendant municipality are immune from liability pursuant to Connecticut’s “recreational use statute,” General Statutes § 52-557g. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim (1) that the trial court improperly ruled…”
Elliott v. City of Waterbury, 715 A.2d 27 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 3× “The Waterbury defendants argued before the trial court for summary judgment on all counts, including the nuisance claim in count three, on the alternate bases of: (1) the immunity provision of the Recreational Land Use Act, namely, General Statutes § 52-557g; and (2) General…”
Wei Ping Wu v. Town of Fairfield, 528 A.2d 364 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The defendants advance on appeal two alternate grounds upon which the judgment may be affirmed; see Practice Book *437 § 4013; first, that General Statutes § 52-557g renders the defendant lifeguards and the town immune from liability and, second, that the plaintiff failed at…”
Jennett v. United States, 597 F. Supp. 110 (D. Conn. 1984).
· cites it 12× “Defendant premises its disclaimer of liability on the provisions of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-557g, which, at the time of this tragic accident, stated in relevant part: *112 (a) Except as provided in § 52-557h, an owner of land who makes all or any part of the land available to the…”
Conway v. Town of Wilton, 664 A.2d 327 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 14× “General Statutes § 52-557g provides that an injury caused by negligence or nuisance on land provided for public recreational use is not an actionable injury.”
Burgess v. State, 920 A.2d 383 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2 General Statutes § 52-557g (a) provides: “Except as provided in section 52-557h, an owner of land who makes all or any part of the land available to the public without charge, rent, fee or other commercial service for recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep the…”
Conway v. Town of Wilton, 692 A.2d 1303 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 3× “” Pursuant to the remand, we directed the parties to file supplemental briefs to address “(1) [w]hether [the association] is immune, under these circumstances, as an owner pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557g, in light of the Supreme Court’s [reversal of Manning v.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557g(b): 1 case
Jennett v. United States, 597 F. Supp. 110 (D. Conn. 1984).
“Defendant premises its disclaimer of liability on the provisions of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-557g, which, at the time of this tragic accident, stated in relevant part: *112 (a) Except as provided in § 52-557h, an owner of land who makes all or any part of the land available to the…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557g(b)(1): 1 case
Jennett v. United States, 597 F. Supp. 110 (D. Conn. 1984).
“Defendant premises its disclaimer of liability on the provisions of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-557g, which, at the time of this tragic accident, stated in relevant part: *112 (a) Except as provided in § 52-557h, an owner of land who makes all or any part of the land available to the…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557g(b)(3): 1 case
Jennett v. United States, 597 F. Supp. 110 (D. Conn. 1984).
“Defendant premises its disclaimer of liability on the provisions of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-557g, which, at the time of this tragic accident, stated in relevant part: *112 (a) Except as provided in § 52-557h, an owner of land who makes all or any part of the land available to the…”
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.