K.S.A. » Chapter 58
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 58-3201 (2026)

Limiting liability of property owners to persons entering premises for recreational purposes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

58-3201. Limiting liability of property owners to persons entering premises for recreational purposes. The purpose of this act 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.

History: L. 1965, ch. 559, § 1; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Immunity from liability to high school athlete injured following based on recreational use (K.S.A. 75-6104) examined. Nichols v. U.S.D. No. 400, 246 Kan. 93, 94, 785 P.2d 986 (1990).

2. Act does not prevent K.S.A. 75-6104(o) from granting immunity for ordinary negligence when fees charged for use of public property. Gonzales v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 247 Kan. 423, 428, 429, 799 P.2d 491 (1990).

3. Whether utility permitted public to use lake area for KRUS (K.S.A. 58-3201 et seq.) immunity purposes in wrongful death action examined. Bingaman v. Kansas City Power and Light Co., 1 F.3d 976, 979 (1993).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lonergan v. May, 53 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “7 (West 1997); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 58-3201 to -3207 (1994 & Supp.”
David L. Klepper v. City of Milford, Kansas, & David L. Klepper v. United States of Am., & Third Party & City of Milford, Kansas, Third Party, 825 F.2d 1440 (3rd Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “In late autumn of 1981, first Milford and then the United States were granted permission to amend their answers to plead the Kansas Recreational Use Statute (“RUS”), K.S.A. 58-3201 to -3207, as a defense. The Kansas RUS exempted landowners (including lessees) from liability for…”
Mozier v. Parsons, 852 F. Supp. 925 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 4× “Kansas Recreational Use Statute In addition to arguing that neither the active negligence nor attractive nuisance exceptions apply to this case, defendants also contend that liability for this accident is precluded by the Kansas Recreational Use Statute, K.S.A. §§ 58-3201 to…”
Gonzales v. Bd. of Shawnee Cnty. Comm'rs, 799 P.2d 491 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 5× “Gonzales as a business invitee; (2) common-law principles of premises liability relating to swimming facilities; and (3) the Kansas Land and Water Recreational Areas Act, K.S.A. 58-3201 et seq. (Kansas Recreational Use Act).”
Patterson v. Cowley Cnty., Kansas, 388 P.3d 923 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “75-6104(o), and the Recreational Use Act, K.S.A. 58-3201 et seq. The Kansas Department of Wildlife sought summary judgment on grounds *447 that (1) it had no duty to place traffic control devices or other warning signs on any portion of 322nd Road, (2) it was immune from suit…”
Bingaman v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 1 F.3d 976 (10th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “She contends the court erroneously concluded defendants were immune from liability under the Kansas Recreational Use Statute (KRUS), Kan.Stat. Ann. §§ 58-3201 to -3207 (1983 & Supp.”
Nichols v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 400, 785 P.2d 986 (Kan. 1990). “75-6104, and the Land and Water Recreational Areas Act, K.S.A. 58-3201 et seq. Nichols appealed. The Court of Appeals held the recreational use exception supplied immunity to the school district and the football coach as an employee acting within the scope of employment.”
Olson v. Empire Dist. Elec. Co., 14 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 58-3201, the first section of the Kansas Land and Water Recreational Areas Act, reads: “The purpose of this act 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…”
Muir v. Cleveland Univ.-Kansas City (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “The college ultimately moved for summary judgment and argued that under the Kansas Land and Water Recreational Areas Act (KLWRAA), K.S.A. 58-3201 et seq., specifically under the recreational use statute (RUS) contained therein under K.”
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.