La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795 (2026)

Limitation of liability of landowner of property used for recreational purposes; property owned by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; parks owned by public entities

✓ laws through the 2025 Regular Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§2795. Limitation of liability of landowner of property used for recreational purposes; property owned by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; parks owned by public entities

           A. As used in this Section:

           (1) "Land" means urban or rural land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways or buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.

           (2) "Owner" means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises.

           (3) "Recreational purposes" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, trapping, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, motorized, or nonmotorized vehicle operation for recreation purposes, nature study, water skiing, ice skating, roller skating, roller blading, skate boarding, sledding, snowmobiling, snow skiing, summer and winter sports, or viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.

           (4) "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for permission to use lands.

           (5) "Person" means individuals regardless of age.

           B.(1) Except for willful or malicious failure to warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity, an owner of land, except an owner of commercial recreational developments or facilities, who permits with or without charge any person to use his land for recreational purposes as herein defined does not thereby:

           (a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purposes.

           (b) Constitute such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed.

           (c) Incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any defect in the land regardless of whether naturally occurring or man-made.

           (2) The provisions of this Subsection shall apply to owners of commercial recreational developments or facilities for injury to persons or property arising out of the commercial recreational activity permitted at the recreational development or facility that occurs on land which does not comprise the commercial recreational development or facility and over which the owner has no control when the recreational activity commences, occurs, or terminates on the commercial recreational development or facility.

           C. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of Subsection B shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased for recreational purposes to the federal government or any state or political subdivision thereof or private persons.

           D. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes from any obligation which he may have in the absence of this Section to exercise care in his use of such land and in his activities thereon, or from the legal consequences of failure to employ such care.

           E.(1) The limitation of liability provided in this Section shall apply to any lands or water bottoms owned, leased, or managed by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, regardless of the purposes for which the land or water bottoms are used, and whether they are used for recreational or nonrecreational purposes.

           (2)(a) The limitation of liability provided in this Section shall apply to any lands, whether urban or rural, which are owned, leased, or managed as a public park by the state or any of its political subdivisions and which are used for recreational purposes.

           (b) The provision of supervision on any land managed as a public park by the state or any of its political subdivisions does not create any greater duty of care which may exist and does not create a duty of care or basis of liability for personal injury or for damage to personal property caused by the act or omission of any person responsible for security or supervision of park activities, except as provided in Subparagraph (E)(2)(d) of this Section.

           (c) For purposes of the limitation of liability afforded to parks pursuant to this Section, this limitation does not apply to playground equipment or stands which are defective.

           (d) The limitation of liability as extended to parks in this Section shall not apply to intentional or grossly negligent acts by an employee of the public entity.

           F. The limitation of liability extended by this Section to the owner, lessee, or occupant of premises shall not be affected by the granting of a lease, right of use, or right of occupancy for any recreational purpose which may limit the use of the premises to persons other than the entire public or by the posting of the premises so as to limit the use of the premises to persons other than the entire public.

           Acts 1975, No. 615, §§2 to 5; Acts 1986, No. 967, §1; Acts 1986, No. 976, §1; Acts 1989, No. 534, §1; Acts 1995, No. 1092, §3; Acts 1996, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 75, §1; Acts 2001, No. 1199, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 714 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 714 (La. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 23× “R.S. 9:2795, controls. This court also noted that the Recreational Use Immunity Statutes are in derogation of common or natural rights and, therefore, are to be strictly interpreted, and must not be extended beyond their obvious meaning.”
Richard v. Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co., 82 So. 3d 541 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 21× “R.S. 9:2795. Finding that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Recreational Use Statutes, we affirm.”
Benoit v. City of Lake Charles, 907 So. 2d 931 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 32× “R.S. 9:2795. The trial court denied the motion.”
Deumite v. State, 692 So. 2d 1127 (La. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 25× “At the trial level, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (DWF) urged the defense of immunity under Subsection E of the Recreational Use Statute, LSA-R.S. 9:2795, and the trial court declared that statutory provision unconstitutional; because of this declaration, this court…”
Lambert v. State, 912 So. 2d 426 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “R.S. 9:2795. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the State and the Sheriff, but denied the motions filed by the Union Parish Police Jury and the Watershed District.”
Price v. Exxon Corp., 664 So. 2d 1273 (La. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 17× “R.S. 9:2795 and contributory negligence. Prior to the conclusion of the trial, plaintiff settled with Exxon, and the matter proceeded against DWF.”
Keelen v. State, Dept. of Culture, Rec. & Tourism, 463 So. 2d 1287 (La. 1985). · cites it 7× “R.S. 9:2795. [1] The trial judge *1289 granted the motion and dismissed Keelen's suit at her cost.”
Van Pelt v. Morgan City Power Boat Ass'n, Inc., 489 So. 2d 1346 (La. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 14× “9:2791 [1] and LSA-R.S. 9:2795 [2] entitled defendants *1349 to summary judgment.”
Fournerat v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 104 So. 3d 76 (La. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 15× “R.S. 9:2795]. The legislature plainly intended to clarify and expand the | ¿application of the RUS.”
DeLafosse v. Vill. of Pine Prairie, 998 So. 2d 1248 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “R.S. 9:2795. After a February 11, 2008 hearing, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing Ms.”
Landry v. Bd. of Levee Com'rs of Orleans, 477 So. 2d 672 (La. 1985). · cites it 8× “9:2791 and R.S. 9:2795, statutes which confer immunity and/or limited liability for landowners who permit use of their premises for recreational purposes, apply to the advantage of the Orleans Levee Board in a tort suit brought against the Board by a recreational crab fisherman…”
Peterson v. W. World Ins. Co., 536 So. 2d 639 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 9× “R.S. 9:2795 was twice amended in 1986. [3] Inasmuch as La.”
Show all 110 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(33): 2 cases
Richard v. Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co., 82 So. 3d 541 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 9:2795. Finding that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Recreational Use Statutes, we affirm.”
Deumite v. State, 668 So. 2d 727 (La. 1996).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(8)(1): 1 case
Gerard Lacassin, invidividually & on behalf of Leighton Lacassin v. State of Louisiana, Dep't of Wildlife & Fisheries, 391 So. 3d 731 (La. Ct. App. 2024).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(A): 2 cases
Moore v. Rice-Land Lumber Co., 150 So. 3d 657 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Lacombe v. Greathouse, 407 So. 2d 1346 (La. Ct. App. 1981).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(A)(1): 5 cases
Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 714 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 9:2795, controls. This court also noted that the Recreational Use Immunity Statutes are in derogation of common or natural rights and, therefore, are to be strictly interpreted, and must not be extended beyond their obvious meaning.”
Benoit v. City of Lake Charles, 907 So. 2d 931 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:2795. The trial court denied the motion.”
Richard v. Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co., 82 So. 3d 541 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 9:2795. Finding that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Recreational Use Statutes, we affirm.”
Socorro v. Orleans Levee Bd., 561 So. 2d 739 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
Allen v. Red Frog Events, LLC, 335 F. Supp. 3d 831 (M.D. La. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(A)(2): 5 cases
Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 714 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 9:2795, controls. This court also noted that the Recreational Use Immunity Statutes are in derogation of common or natural rights and, therefore, are to be strictly interpreted, and must not be extended beyond their obvious meaning.”
Richard v. Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co., 82 So. 3d 541 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 9:2795. Finding that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Recreational Use Statutes, we affirm.”
Socorro v. Orleans Levee Bd., 561 So. 2d 739 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
Moore v. Rice-Land Lumber Co., 150 So. 3d 657 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Johnson v. Lloyd's of London, 653 So. 2d 226 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(A)(3): 16 cases
Richard v. Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co., 82 So. 3d 541 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 9:2795. Finding that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Recreational Use Statutes, we affirm.”
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).
Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 714 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 9:2795, controls. This court also noted that the Recreational Use Immunity Statutes are in derogation of common or natural rights and, therefore, are to be strictly interpreted, and must not be extended beyond their obvious meaning.”
Fournerat v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 104 So. 3d 76 (La. Ct. App. 2012). “R.S. 9:2795]. The legislature plainly intended to clarify and expand the | ¿application of the RUS.”
Greer v. United States, 333 F. Supp. 3d 631 (W.D. La. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(B): 13 cases
Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 714 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 9:2795, controls. This court also noted that the Recreational Use Immunity Statutes are in derogation of common or natural rights and, therefore, are to be strictly interpreted, and must not be extended beyond their obvious meaning.”
Deumite v. State, 692 So. 2d 1127 (La. Ct. App. 1997). “At the trial level, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (DWF) urged the defense of immunity under Subsection E of the Recreational Use Statute, LSA-R.S. 9:2795, and the trial court declared that statutory provision unconstitutional; because of this declaration, this court…”
Socorro v. Orleans Levee Bd., 561 So. 2d 739 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
Stuart v. City of Morgan City, 504 So. 2d 934 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
Naquin v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 768 So. 2d 605 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(B)(1): 10 cases
Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 714 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 9:2795, controls. This court also noted that the Recreational Use Immunity Statutes are in derogation of common or natural rights and, therefore, are to be strictly interpreted, and must not be extended beyond their obvious meaning.”
Richard v. Louisiana Newpack Shrimp Co., 82 So. 3d 541 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 9:2795. Finding that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Recreational Use Statutes, we affirm.”
Benoit v. City of Lake Charles, 907 So. 2d 931 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:2795. The trial court denied the motion.”
DeLafosse v. Vill. of Pine Prairie, 998 So. 2d 1248 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 9:2795. After a February 11, 2008 hearing, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing Ms.”
Greer v. United States, 333 F. Supp. 3d 631 (W.D. La. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(B)(1)(c): 1 case
Lambert v. State, 912 So. 2d 426 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:2795. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the State and the Sheriff, but denied the motions filed by the Union Parish Police Jury and the Watershed District.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(B)(l)(a): 1 case
Longino v. United States Dep't of Agric., 912 F. Supp. 2d 424 (W.D. La. 2012).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(B)(l)(c): 1 case
Fournerat v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 104 So. 3d 76 (La. Ct. App. 2012). “R.S. 9:2795]. The legislature plainly intended to clarify and expand the | ¿application of the RUS.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(D): 4 cases
Moore v. Rice-Land Lumber Co., 150 So. 3d 657 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Johnson v. Lloyd's of London, 653 So. 2d 226 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
Ward v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 671 So. 2d 1229 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
Curtis Pierce v. State of Tennessee, No. M2020-00533-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 25, 2021).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(E): 5 cases
Deumite v. State, 668 So. 2d 727 (La. 1996).
Deumite v. State, 692 So. 2d 1127 (La. Ct. App. 1997). “At the trial level, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (DWF) urged the defense of immunity under Subsection E of the Recreational Use Statute, LSA-R.S. 9:2795, and the trial court declared that statutory provision unconstitutional; because of this declaration, this court…”
Miller v. State, 572 So. 2d 197 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
Sevin v. Par. of Plaquemines, 901 So. 2d 619 (La. Ct. App. 2005).
Ramos v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 977 So. 2d 1066 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(E)(1): 1 case
Lambert v. State, 912 So. 2d 426 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:2795. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the State and the Sheriff, but denied the motions filed by the Union Parish Police Jury and the Watershed District.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(E)(2)(a): 7 cases
Benoit v. City of Lake Charles, 907 So. 2d 931 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:2795. The trial court denied the motion.”
Gaudet v. Jefferson Par., 116 So. 3d 691 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
DeLafosse v. Vill. of Pine Prairie, 998 So. 2d 1248 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 9:2795. After a February 11, 2008 hearing, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing Ms.”
Lambert v. State, 912 So. 2d 426 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:2795. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the State and the Sheriff, but denied the motions filed by the Union Parish Police Jury and the Watershed District.”
Domingue v. Stanley, 784 So. 2d 844 (La. Ct. App. 2001).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(E)(2)(c): 2 cases
DeLafosse v. Vill. of Pine Prairie, 998 So. 2d 1248 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 9:2795. After a February 11, 2008 hearing, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing Ms.”
Allen v. Red Frog Events, LLC, 335 F. Supp. 3d 831 (M.D. La. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(E)(2)(d): 3 cases
Gaudet v. Jefferson Par., 116 So. 3d 691 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
DeLafosse v. Vill. of Pine Prairie, 998 So. 2d 1248 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 9:2795. After a February 11, 2008 hearing, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing Ms.”
Brenda Lewis v. City of Bastrop, 280 So. 3d 907 (La. Ct. App. 2019).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2795(F): 2 cases
Doyle v. Lonesome Dev., Ltd. Liab. Co., 254 So. 3d 714 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 9:2795, controls. This court also noted that the Recreational Use Immunity Statutes are in derogation of common or natural rights and, therefore, are to be strictly interpreted, and must not be extended beyond their obvious meaning.”
Dear v. Crosby Chemicals, Inc., 670 So. 2d 775 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
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.