Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 375.251 (2025)

Limitation on liability of persons making available to public certain areas for recreational purposes without charge.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

375.251 Limitation on liability of persons making available to public certain areas for recreational purposes without charge.—

(1) The purpose of this section is to encourage persons to make land, water areas, and park areas available to the public for outdoor recreational purposes by limiting their liability to persons using these areas and to third persons who may be damaged by the acts or omissions of persons using these areas.

(2)(a) An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that area safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on that area of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on the area. An owner or lessee who provides the public with an area for outdoor recreational purposes:

1. Is not presumed to extend any assurance that the area is safe for any purpose;

2. Does not incur any duty of care toward a person who goes on the area; or

3. Is not liable or responsible for any injury to persons or property caused by the act or omission of a person who goes on the area.

(b) Notwithstanding the inclusion of the term “public” in this subsection and subsection (1), an owner or lessee who makes available to any person an area primarily for the purposes of hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing is entitled to the limitation on liability provided herein so long as the owner or lessee provides written notice of this provision to the person before or at the time of entry upon the area or posts notice of this provision conspicuously upon the area.

(c) The Legislature recognizes that an area offered for outdoor recreational purposes may be subject to multiple uses. The limitation of liability extended to an owner or lessee under this subsection applies only if no charge is made for entry to or use of the area for outdoor recreational purposes and no other revenue is derived from patronage of the area for outdoor recreational purposes. An owner may derive revenue from concessions or special events but will only retain liability protection under this subsection if such revenue is used exclusively to maintain, manage, and improve the outdoor recreational area.

(3)(a) An owner of an area who enters into a written agreement concerning the area with a state agency for outdoor recreational purposes, where such agreement recognizes that the state agency is responsible for personal injury, loss, or damage resulting in whole or in part from the state agency’s use of the area under the terms of the agreement subject to the limitations and conditions specified in s. 768.28, owes no duty of care to keep the area safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on the area of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities thereon. An owner who enters into a written agreement concerning the area with a state agency for outdoor recreational purposes:

1. Is not presumed to extend any assurance that the area is safe for any purpose;

2. Does not incur any duty of care toward a person who goes on the area that is subject to the agreement; or

3. Is not liable or responsible for any injury to persons or property caused by the act or omission of a person who goes on the area that is subject to the agreement.

(b) This subsection applies to all persons going on the area that is subject to the agreement, including invitees, licensees, and trespassers.

(c) It is the intent of this subsection that an agreement entered into pursuant to this subsection should not result in compensation to the owner of the area above reimbursement of reasonable costs or expenses associated with the agreement. An agreement that provides for such does not subject the owner or the state agency to liability even if the compensation exceeds those costs or expenses. This paragraph applies only to agreements executed after July 1, 2012.

(4) This section does not relieve any person of liability that would otherwise exist for deliberate, willful, or malicious injury to persons or property. This section does not create or increase the liability of any person.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Area” includes land, water, and park areas.

(b) “Outdoor recreational purposes” includes, but is not limited to, hunting; fishing; wildlife viewing; swimming; boating; camping; picnicking; hiking; pleasure driving; nature study; water skiing; motorcycling; visiting historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites; and traversing or crossing for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from, and access to and from, public lands or lands owned or leased by a state agency which are used for outdoor recreational purposes.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ch. 63-313; s. 1, ch. 75-17; s. 7, ch. 87-328; s. 1, ch. 2012-203; s. 1, ch. 2021-56.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2021 · leading case: Zuk v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Zuk v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1988). · cites it 34× “Secondly, the government argues that the Florida Recreational Use Statute, Fla.Stat. § 375.251, which limits the liability of persons who make available to the public certain areas for recreational use, applies to bar this FTCA suit.”

Chapman v. Pinellas Cnty., 423 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). · cites it 6× “In one defense the county asserted it was not liable because of section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1979).”

City of Pensacola v. Stamm, 448 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). · cites it 6× “The final point raised by the city of Pensacola is that section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1981), which provides a limitation on the liability of persons making property owned by them available to the public without charge for recreational purposes, should be applied to the city…”

Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Yelvington, 392 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). · cites it 4× “The County asserts first, that Section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1975), relieves it of any duty of care toward any person who goes onto Pelican Harbor or any park area which it provides.”

Abdin v. Fischer, 374 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1979). · cites it 5× “This is a direct appeal from a circuit court's order upholding the constitutionality of section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1975), and granting defendants' motion for summary judgment.”

Sea Fresh Frozen Prods., Inc. v. Abdin, 411 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). · cites it 6× “The appellant was legally entitled to the benefits under section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1975), and the court should have enforced its right.”

Arias v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 426 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). · cites it 4× “Appellees also assert that under the provisions of Section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1979), [1] the defendant Williams owed no *1139 duty of care to keep the lake safe for entry or use by others or to give warning to persons entering or going on the lake of any hazardous…”

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). · cites it 2× “7, § 5902 (4) (2011); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 375.251 (5)(b) (West Supp.”

Avallone v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs Citrus Cty., 493 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1986). · cites it 2× “NOTES [*] The issues of sovereign immunity and duty should be addressed separately. These are two completely independent issues.”

William Russell Kleer v. United States, 761 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985). · cites it 4× “The United States moved to dismiss the action on the ground that Fla.Stat. 375.251 barred the action. On the eve of trial, the district court entered an order involuntarily dismissing Kleer’s suit, pursuant to Fed.”

Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “7, §§ 5901-5907 (1991); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 375.251 (West 2000); Ga.”

Robin Fisher v. United States, 995 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “” Fla. Stat. § 375.251 (2)(a). We must decide whether the statute applies even where, as here, the injured entrant went onto the land for reasons related to business and, thus, in common-law lingo, was a “business-visitor invitee.”

Show all 26 citing cases →

— 375.251(1) — 2 cases

Zuk v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1988). “Secondly, the government argues that the Florida Recreational Use Statute, Fla.Stat. § 375.251, which limits the liability of persons who make available to the public certain areas for recreational use, applies to bar this FTCA suit.”

William Russell Kleer v. United States, 761 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir. 1985). “The United States moved to dismiss the action on the ground that Fla.Stat. 375.251 barred the action. On the eve of trial, the district court entered an order involuntarily dismissing Kleer’s suit, pursuant to Fed.”

— 375.251(2) — 1 case

Goodman v. Juniper Springs Canoe Rentals & Rec., Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1384 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

— 375.251(2)(a) — 1 case

Abdin v. Fischer, 374 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1979). “This is a direct appeal from a circuit court's order upholding the constitutionality of section 375.251, Florida Statutes (1975), and granting defendants' motion for summary judgment.”

— 375.251(2)(b) — 2 cases

Goodman v. Juniper Springs Canoe Rentals & Rec., Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1384 (M.D. Fla. 1997).

— 375.251(5) — 1 case

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.