Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A (2026)

Limited liability for recreational or harvesting activities

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Definitions.  As used in this section, unless the context indicates otherwise, the following terms have the following meanings.  
A. "Premises" means improved and unimproved lands, private ways, roads, any buildings or structures on those lands and waters standing on, flowing through or adjacent to those lands. "Premises" includes railroad property, railroad rights-of-way and utility corridors to which public access is permitted.   [PL 2005, c. 375, §1 (AMD).]
B. "Recreational or harvesting activities" means recreational activities conducted out-of-doors, including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, environmental education and research, hiking, rock climbing, ice climbing, bouldering, rappelling, recreational caving, sight-seeing, operating snow-traveling and all-terrain vehicles, skiing, hang-gliding, noncommercial aviation activities, dog sledding, equine activities, boating, sailing, canoeing, rafting, biking, picnicking, swimming or activities involving the harvesting or gathering of forest, field or marine products. It includes entry of, volunteer maintenance and improvement of, use of and passage over premises in order to pursue these activities. "Recreational or harvesting activities" does not include commercial agricultural or timber harvesting.   [PL 2015, c. 20, §1 (AMD).]
C. "Occupant" includes, but is not limited to, an individual, corporation, partnership, association or other legal entity that constructs or maintains trails or other improvements for public recreational use.   [PL 2003, c. 509, §1 (NEW).]
[PL 2015, c. 20, §1 (AMD).]
2.  Limited duty.  An owner, lessee, manager, holder of an easement or occupant of premises does not have a duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational or harvesting activities or to give warning of any hazardous condition, use, structure or activity on these premises to persons entering for those purposes. This subsection applies regardless of whether the owner, lessee, manager, holder of an easement or occupant has given permission to another to pursue recreational or harvesting activities on the premises.  
[PL 1995, c. 566, §1 (AMD).]
3.  Permissive use.  An owner, lessee, manager, holder of an easement or occupant who gives permission to another to pursue recreational or harvesting activities on the premises does not thereby:  
A. Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for those purposes;   [PL 1979, c. 253, §2 (NEW).]
B. Make the person to whom permission is granted an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; or   [PL 1979, c. 253, §2 (NEW).]
C. Assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by any act of persons to whom the permission is granted even if that injury occurs on property of another person.   [PL 2007, c. 260, §1 (AMD).]
[PL 2007, c. 260, §1 (AMD).]
4.  Limitations on section.  This section does not limit the liability that would otherwise exist:  
A. For a willful or malicious failure to guard or to warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity;   [PL 1979, c. 253, §2 (NEW).]
B. For an injury suffered in any case where permission to pursue any recreational or harvesting activities was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to the following:  
(1) The landowner or the landowner's agent by the State;  
(2) The landowner or the landowner's agent for use of the premises on which the injury was suffered, as long as the premises are not used primarily for commercial recreational purposes and as long as the user has not been granted the exclusive right to make use of the premises for recreational activities; or  
(3) The landowner or grantor who grants, and the holder or grantee who accepts, an easement or other legal instrument that makes an express grant of perpetual public access over premises for the public to pursue recreational or harvesting activities; or   [PL 2025, c. 256, §§1, 2 (AMD).]
C. For an injury caused, by acts of persons to whom permission to pursue any recreational or harvesting activities was granted, to other persons to whom the person granting permission, or the owner, lessee, manager, holder of an easement or occupant of the premises, owed a duty to keep the premises safe or to warn of danger.   [PL 1995, c. 566, §1 (AMD).]
[PL 2025, c. 256, §§1, 2 (AMD).]
5.  No duty created.  Nothing in this section creates a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to a person or property.  
[PL 1993, c. 622, §1 (AMD).]
6.  Costs and fees.  The court shall award any direct legal costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to an owner, lessee, manager, holder of an easement or occupant who is found not to be liable for injury to a person or property pursuant to this section.  
[PL 1995, c. 566, §1 (AMD).]
7.  Perpetual grant of public access.  A landowner or other grantor who grants, and a holder or grantee who accepts, an easement or other legal instrument that includes a perpetual right of public access over premises for the public to pursue one or more recreational or harvesting activities, in reliance on the protections from liability established by this section as they exist at the time of the grant, as evidenced by an instrument recorded in the registry of deeds for the county in which the premises are located, acquires a permanent vested property right to those protections for any rights so granted, which runs to their heirs, successors and assigns.  
[PL 2025, c. 256, §3 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1979, c. 253, §2 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 514, §1 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 663, §75 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 297, §2 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 762, §25 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 622, §1 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 566, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 113, §2 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 509, §1 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 375, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 260, §1 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 156, §1 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 20, §1 (AMD). PL 2025, c. 256, §§1-3 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Robbins v. Great N. Paper Co., 557 A.2d 614 (Me. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robbins v. Great N. Paper Co., 557 A.2d 614 (Me. 1989). · cites it 20× “Great Northern by its answer set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1988), the statute limiting liability for recreational or harvesting activities, as an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs' claims.”
Dickinson v. Clark, 2001 ME 49 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “) contending that Maine’s Recreational Use Statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (Supp.2000), does not insulate Clarence from liability; that there are questions of material fact as to whether Clarence may be found negligent for supplying dangerous machinery for use by a minor pursuant…”
Stanley v. Tilcon Maine, Inc., 541 A.2d 951 (Me. 1988). · cites it 8× “The Superior Court concluded that plaintiffs claim is barred by the Recreational Use Statute (14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1987)). On appeal, plaintiff contends that a minor’s claim based on the common law doctrine of attractive nuisance 1 is not barred by the statute.”
Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 2010 ME 89 (Me. 2010). · cites it 4× “[¶ 47] Further support that public outdoor reaction excludes nonparticipatory activities is found in the recreational land use statute, 14 M.R.S. § 159-A (2009). That statute defines recreational activities, in relevant part, as: [R]ecreational activities conducted out-of-doors,…”
Noel v. Town of Ogunquit, 555 A.2d 1054 (Me. 1989). · cites it 7× “We reject the Town’s assertion that the recreational land use statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1988) applies to recreational activities conducted on a public beach owned by the Town and serves to bar this action.”
Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (Supp.2001); Robbins v.”
Norman Gaudette v. Terry M. Davis, 2017 ME 86 (Me. 2017). “§ 301 (2016), and claims relating to recreational use of land, 14 M.R.S. § 159-A (2016). . "[N]ot only has this statute been used by different parties than those intended, but it has served an entirely different purpose than the one intended.”
Radley v. Fish, 856 A.2d 1196 (Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “As to attractive nuisance, the court concluded that the limited liability for recreational or harvesting activities statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (2003), relieved Fish from owing a duty to Eric to keep his lot safe or warn of any hazardous condition.”
Hafford v. Great N. Nekoosa Corp., 687 A.2d 967 (Me. 1996). · cites it 4× “) concluding that Maine’s recreational use statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (Supp.1995), limits the liability of Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation for injuries Wilmer Hafford suffered on Great Northern’s property.”
Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords, 2009 ME 29 (Me. 2009). “This provision merely reiterates our statutory law limiting landowner liability for recreational uses, see 14 M.R.S. § 159-A(2) (2008), and acknowledges Maine’s open lands tradition, allowing public access to wilderness lands for recreational use, see Weeks v.”
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). “§ 9:2795(A)(3) (2009); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 159-A(1)(B) (Supp.”
Jordan v. H.C. Haynes, Inc., 504 A.2d 618 (Me. 1986). · cites it 3× “On appeal, plaintiffs contend that summary judgment was improper in that their answers to two interrogatories raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants willfully or maliciously failed to maintain their land in a safe condition and to warn against a…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(1)(A) — 2 cases
Stanley v. Tilcon Maine, Inc., 541 A.2d 951 (Me. 1988). “The Superior Court concluded that plaintiffs claim is barred by the Recreational Use Statute (14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1987)). On appeal, plaintiff contends that a minor’s claim based on the common law doctrine of attractive nuisance 1 is not barred by the statute.”
Noel v. Town of Ogunquit, 555 A.2d 1054 (Me. 1989). “We reject the Town’s assertion that the recreational land use statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1988) applies to recreational activities conducted on a public beach owned by the Town and serves to bar this action.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(1)(B) — 5 cases
Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 2010 ME 89 (Me. 2010). “[¶ 47] Further support that public outdoor reaction excludes nonparticipatory activities is found in the recreational land use statute, 14 M.R.S. § 159-A (2009). That statute defines recreational activities, in relevant part, as: [R]ecreational activities conducted out-of-doors,…”
Dickinson v. Clark, 2001 ME 49 (Me. 2001). “) contending that Maine’s Recreational Use Statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (Supp.2000), does not insulate Clarence from liability; that there are questions of material fact as to whether Clarence may be found negligent for supplying dangerous machinery for use by a minor pursuant…”
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). “§ 9:2795(A)(3) (2009); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 159-A(1)(B) (Supp.”
Robbins v. Great N. Paper Co., 557 A.2d 614 (Me. 1989). “Great Northern by its answer set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1988), the statute limiting liability for recreational or harvesting activities, as an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs' claims.”
Stanley v. Tilcon Maine, Inc., 541 A.2d 951 (Me. 1988). “The Superior Court concluded that plaintiffs claim is barred by the Recreational Use Statute (14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1987)). On appeal, plaintiff contends that a minor’s claim based on the common law doctrine of attractive nuisance 1 is not barred by the statute.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(1)(C) — 1 case
Whitney v. Cassidy (D. Me. 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(2) — 9 cases
Dickinson v. Clark, 2001 ME 49 (Me. 2001). “) contending that Maine’s Recreational Use Statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (Supp.2000), does not insulate Clarence from liability; that there are questions of material fact as to whether Clarence may be found negligent for supplying dangerous machinery for use by a minor pursuant…”
Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords, 2009 ME 29 (Me. 2009). “This provision merely reiterates our statutory law limiting landowner liability for recreational uses, see 14 M.R.S. § 159-A(2) (2008), and acknowledges Maine’s open lands tradition, allowing public access to wilderness lands for recreational use, see Weeks v.”
Robbins v. Great N. Paper Co., 557 A.2d 614 (Me. 1989). “Great Northern by its answer set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1988), the statute limiting liability for recreational or harvesting activities, as an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs' claims.”
Radley v. Fish, 856 A.2d 1196 (Me. 2004). “As to attractive nuisance, the court concluded that the limited liability for recreational or harvesting activities statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (2003), relieved Fish from owing a duty to Eric to keep his lot safe or warn of any hazardous condition.”
Stanley v. Tilcon Maine, Inc., 541 A.2d 951 (Me. 1988). “The Superior Court concluded that plaintiffs claim is barred by the Recreational Use Statute (14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1987)). On appeal, plaintiff contends that a minor’s claim based on the common law doctrine of attractive nuisance 1 is not barred by the statute.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(3) — 1 case
Whitney v. Cassidy (D. Me. 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(4) — 1 case
Stanley v. Tilcon Maine, Inc., 541 A.2d 951 (Me. 1988). “The Superior Court concluded that plaintiffs claim is barred by the Recreational Use Statute (14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1987)). On appeal, plaintiff contends that a minor’s claim based on the common law doctrine of attractive nuisance 1 is not barred by the statute.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(4)(A) — 4 cases
Robbins v. Great N. Paper Co., 557 A.2d 614 (Me. 1989). “Great Northern by its answer set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1988), the statute limiting liability for recreational or harvesting activities, as an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs' claims.”
Noel v. Town of Ogunquit, 555 A.2d 1054 (Me. 1989). “We reject the Town’s assertion that the recreational land use statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1988) applies to recreational activities conducted on a public beach owned by the Town and serves to bar this action.”
Whitney v. Cassidy (D. Me. 2022).
Wing v. Davric Maine Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(4)(B) — 2 cases
Robbins v. Great N. Paper Co., 557 A.2d 614 (Me. 1989). “Great Northern by its answer set forth in 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1988), the statute limiting liability for recreational or harvesting activities, as an affirmative defense to the plaintiffs' claims.”
Wing v. Davric Maine Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2009).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(4)(B)(2) — 1 case
Hafford v. Great N. Nekoosa Corp., 687 A.2d 967 (Me. 1996). “) concluding that Maine’s recreational use statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (Supp.1995), limits the liability of Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation for injuries Wilmer Hafford suffered on Great Northern’s property.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(5) — 1 case
Whitney v. Cassidy (D. Me. 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 159-A(6) — 2 cases
Stanley v. Tilcon Maine, Inc., 541 A.2d 951 (Me. 1988). “The Superior Court concluded that plaintiffs claim is barred by the Recreational Use Statute (14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A (1980 & Supp.1987)). On appeal, plaintiff contends that a minor’s claim based on the common law doctrine of attractive nuisance 1 is not barred by the statute.”
Blais (D. Me. 2026).
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.