Except as set forth in this section, nothing in sections 604A.20 to 604A.27 limits liability that otherwise exists:
(1) for conduct which, at law, entitles a trespasser to maintain an action and obtain relief for the conduct complained of; or
(2) for injury suffered in any case where the owner charges the persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational purpose, except that in the case of land leased or dedicated to the state or a political subdivision, any consideration received from the state or political subdivision by the owner for the lease or dedication is not considered a charge within the meaning of this section.
Except for conduct set forth in section 604A.22, clause (3), a person may not maintain an action and obtain relief at law for conduct referred to by clause (1) in this section if the entry upon the land is incidental to or arises from access granted for the recreational trail use of land dedicated, leased, or permitted by the owners for recreational trail use.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 2002–2018 · leading case:
Razink v. Krutzig, 746 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
Razink v. Krutzig, 746 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 49× “Appellants argue *646 that the district court erred by concluding that: (1) under Minn.Stat. § 604A.25 (2002), appellants are precluded from maintaining this action that arises out of entry onto land for recreational-trail use; (2) the landowner’s agent has no greater duty to…”
Kastner v. Star Trails Ass'n, 646 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 4× “22 provides: Except as provided in section 604A.25, an owner 3 who gives written or oral permission for the use of the land for recreational purposes 4 without charge: (1) owes no duty of care to render or maintain the land safe for entry or use by other persons for recreational…”
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik, 912 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. 2018).
· cites it 4× “22 [was] applicable in this case," but denied the motion "insofar as the case [could not] be dismissed due to factual disputes pertaining to [Son's] ability to recover under the trespasser exception [ Minn. Stat. § 604A.25 ]." At trial, and based solely on the trespasser theory,…”
Kastner v. Star Trails Ass'n, 658 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “4 (2002), and (b) the recreational-use-immunity statute, Minn.Stat. § 604A.25 (2002), we reverse. FACTS On January 6, 1996, and January 24, 1999, respectively, respondents Eric Nelson and Andrew Kastner were paralyzed after they lost control of their snowmobiles at approximately…”
— Minn. Stat. § 604A.25(1) — 1 case
Ouradnik v. Ouradnik, 912 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. 2018).
“22 [was] applicable in this case," but denied the motion "insofar as the case [could not] be dismissed due to factual disputes pertaining to [Son's] ability to recover under the trespasser exception [ Minn. Stat. § 604A.25 ]." At trial, and based solely on the trespasser theory,…”
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.