Any landowner, lessee, occupant, or any person in control of the land or premises or such person's agent who gives permission to another person to hunt, fish, trap, camp, engage in water sports, participate in white water rafting or canoeing, hike, sightsee, ride animals, bird watch, train dogs, boat, cave, pick fruit and vegetables for the participant's own benefit, engage in nature and historical studies and research, climb rocks, shoot skeet and trap, engage in sporting clays, shooting sports, and target shooting, including archery and shooting range activities, ski, ride off-road vehicles, recreational noncommercial aircraft operations or recreational noncommercial ultra light vehicle operations on private airstrips, and cut and remove wood for the participant's own use upon such land or premises does not by giving such permission:
- (1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose;
- (2) Constitute the person to whom permission has been granted to legal status of an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed; or
- (3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to such person or purposely caused by any act of such person to whom permission has been granted except as provided in § 70-7-104.
Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 53,s 2, eff. 4/6/2015.
Acts 1963, ch. 177, § 4; T.C.A., § 51-804; Acts 1987, ch. 448, § 3; 2010, ch. 968, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case:
Bishop v. Beckner, 109 S.W.3d 725 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Bishop v. Beckner, 109 S.W.3d 725 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “This can be seen from the following pertinent language of T.C.A. § 70-7-103: Any landowner, ... of the land or premises .”
Curtis Pierce v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 10× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-103 (2). In Parent, our Supreme Court instructed that a recreational use defense “requires a two-pronged analysis,” noting that the necessary inquiries are: 8 Notwithstanding the broad nature of the term “landowner” under the statute and its inclusion of…”
Myra Huls v. Mark Davis (6th Cir. 2020).
“IV In November 2019, the parties jointly7 moved to certify the following question to the Ten- nessee Supreme Court: “Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-103 provide a distinct affirmative defense 6 Mr.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-103(2) — 1 case
Curtis Pierce v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
“” Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-103 (2). In Parent, our Supreme Court instructed that a recreational use defense “requires a two-pronged analysis,” noting that the necessary inquiries are: 8 Notwithstanding the broad nature of the term “landowner” under the statute and its inclusion of…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-103(3) — 1 case
Curtis Pierce v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021).
“” Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-7-103 (2). In Parent, our Supreme Court instructed that a recreational use defense “requires a two-pronged analysis,” noting that the necessary inquiries are: 8 Notwithstanding the broad nature of the term “landowner” under the statute and its inclusion of…”
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.