# "Liability Waiver" law for land owners...



## Liv4Huntin' (May 24, 2000)

Does anyone know where I can find a clear definition of this law?? 
This would be to absolve land owners of any liability for accidents on their land by persons using that land. For clarification, I've found the Michigan Recreational Land Use Statutes......it's 'clear as mud' to me!! Thanks.
~ m ~


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 451 of 1994


324.73301 Liability of landowner, tenant, or lessee for injuries to persons on property for purpose of outdoor recreation or trail use, using Michigan trailway or other public trail, gleaning agricultural or farm products, fishing or hunting, or picking and purchasing agricultural or farm products at farm or &#8220;u-pick&#8221; operation; definition.
Sec. 73301.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying to the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land a valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, or any other outdoor recreational use or trail use, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee.

(2) A cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying to the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land a valuable consideration for the purpose of entering or exiting from or using a Michigan trailway as designated under part 721 or other public trail, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee. For purposes of this subsection, a Michigan trailway or public trail may be located on land of any size including, but not limited to, urban, suburban, subdivided, and rural land.

(3) A cause of action shall not arise against the owner, tenant, or lessee of land or premises for injuries to a person who is on that land or premises for the purpose of gleaning agricultural or farm products, unless that person's injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee.

(4) A cause of action shall not arise against the owner, tenant, or lessee of a farm used in the production of agricultural goods as defined by section 35(1)(h) of the former single business tax act, 1975 PA 228, or by section 207(1)(d) of the Michigan business tax act, 2007 PA 36, MCL 208.1207, for injuries to a person who is on that farm and has paid the owner, tenant, or lessee valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing or hunting, unless that person's injuries were caused by a condition which involved an unreasonable risk of harm and all of the following apply:

(a) The owner, tenant, or lessee knew or had reason to know of the condition or risk.

(b) The owner, tenant, or lessee failed to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the person of the condition or risk.

(c) The person injured did not know or did not have reason to know of the condition or risk.

(5) A cause of action shall not arise against the owner, tenant, or lessee of land or premises for injuries to a person, other than an employee or contractor of the owner, tenant, or lessee, who is on the land or premises for the purpose of picking and purchasing agricultural or farm products at a farm or "u-pick" operation, unless the person's injuries were caused by a condition that involved an unreasonable risk of harm and all of the following apply:

(a) The owner, tenant, or lessee knew or had reason to know of the condition or risk.

(b) The owner, tenant, or lessee failed to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the person of the condition or risk.

(c) The person injured did not know or did not have reason to know of the condition or risk.

(6) As used in this section, "agricultural or farm products" means the natural products of the farm, nursery, grove, orchard, vineyard, garden, and apiary, including, but not limited to, trees and firewood.



http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hp....aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-324-73301


----------



## Liv4Huntin' (May 24, 2000)

That's what I found in the 'statutes'........ it looks like we need to get an attorney to decipher what it means?? The part about 'without paying valuable consideration' is what's throwing us. This land would not be open to the public, just 'a select few' ... would this still apply?
~m~


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

What I have always understood that if a person paid to use the land and the landowner caused or should have known and told the person who paid about some risk if any. For example, say the landowner builds hunting towers to rent out to others on his land. The landowner never takes care of maintenence on these 10 year old towers. Joe Hunter climbs up in the towner and falls through the floor. The landowner might have a problem. However, landowner rents out his property for hunting. Nothing but woods and fields and fences. Joe Hunter climbs over fence and falls, breaks arm. Joe Hunters fault, not landowner so no cause of action can happen.

Of all my years in working Law Enforcement I don't know of once single civil action that even went to court, or was even started over someone getting hurt while hunting or fishing on land over another unless that landowner was at fault for the person getting hurt. Paid or otherwise. Obviously we have a much more sue happy society now days but I don't believe one should lose to much sleep over this issue.


----------



## Liv4Huntin' (May 24, 2000)

Appreciate the clarification.
~ m ~


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Here is a related case from Missouri.

Hunters Can't Blame Landowners, Missouri Supreme Court Says

When Missouri landowners give people free access to their land, they are immune to any suits filed over injuries or deaths on the property, the state Supreme Court decided Tuesday.

For Hermann farmers Carlton and Arline Young, the opinion is a shield from a wrongful death suit filed against them in 2005 over an accidental shooting on their land.

The Youngs contended they were protected by the Missouri Recreational Use Act, which lays out legal immunities for landowners who give people access to their property for recreational use. That term includes activities such as hunting, camping or nature study.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/scienc...owners_missouri_supreme_court_says/index.html


----------



## Liv4Huntin' (May 24, 2000)

Thanks muchly, all. 
~ m ~


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

Liv4Huntin' said:


> That's what I found in the 'statutes'........ it looks like we need to get an attorney to decipher what it means?? The part about 'without paying valuable consideration' is what's throwing us. This land would not be open to the public, just 'a select few' ... would this still apply?
> ~m~


Valuable consideration is just another way of saying that the use of the land was paid for in some way. It could be money or some other good. 

In general, the law means that if a landowner allows someone to use their property for free, then they are protected from liability, except in the case of "gross negligence" or "willfull and wanton misconduct."

If the landowner is a farmer and allows someone on their land for a fee, they may be liable if a person was injured by some known (or should have known) risk or condition and they failed to warn the person about the risk or condition.


----------



## Liv4Huntin' (May 24, 2000)

That sure does help!
~ m ~


----------

