Public Access Guide for
Landowners, Water Trails
& River Managers
Photo: River Management Society

Welcome!
Thank you for taking an interest in this important
topic. This has been developed to be a helpful
resource for landowners and land managers who are
considering the option of providing access to and use
of their property for recreation.
Private landowners, who have considerably different
liability considerations than do state and local agencies,
are addressed first, followed by a section on public
landowners.
This is not a legal document, but rather a resource to help answer
basic questions concerning liability, recreational use statutes, and
other concepts that need to be considered. A glossary is provided
at the end of the document to define legal terms and concepts. First
mentions of technical terms will contain links to the glossary.
Photo: Interagency Wild and Scenic Coordinating Council

Recreational use statutes are state-specific laws developed to encourage
private landowners to open their land for public use without fear of being sued. While
every landowner must understand their responsibilities and that no one is immune from a
liability claim, these statutes provide landowners with important basic legal protection.
There are three main issues involved with legal protection and landowner liability.
and should be addressed separately:
1. Fees
2.Attractive Nuisances
3.Dangerous Conditions
Landowners should always consult their state’s recreational use statute, local
organizations, and/or their personal legal counsel for updated and additional guidance
Click HERE to check your state’s Recreational Use Statute
Private Landowners

N
o
Fees
Case Study: Tubing Rental in Arizona
A participant of a commercial tubing/shuttling
operation on a river in Arizona sued the recreation
provider for negligence. The article explains what
factors must be taken into consideration with such
tort claims between individuals and outfitters on
publicly accessed waterways.
Is the landowner charging fees or accepting
donations for recreation-related purposes?
A landowner is generally immune from
liability. Remember to consider if attractive
nuisances and dangerous conditions exist.
Photo: NPS/RTCA

Yes
In most states, a landowner is not immune from liability.
Exceptions:
• Fees are allowed in 24 states if land is leased to a public agency
• Alabama: fees are allowed if land use is not commercial
• Texas: fees are allowed if they are less than 2x property taxes
• Nebraska: fees may be charged, but only for groups
• North Carolina: fees are allowed if for non-trail recreational use
• Massachusetts: donations are allowed
• South Dakota: non-monetary gifts up to $100 are allowed
• Virginia: fees are allowed if to maintain the land
• Wisconsin: fees are allowed if revenues are less than $2,000
per year
Is the landowner charging fees or accepting
donations for recreation-related purposes?Fees

Attractive Nuisances
Natural bodies of water are not considered attractive nuisances.
Landowners have no responsibility to make these“safe” when
they are not designated for swimming.
3. Will children be unable to protect
themselves from danger?
4. Will it be easy to remove the hazard
without hardship, given the nature of the
potential harm?
2. Is it likely that children will access the
property?
1. Do you know of the presence of
hazardous objects on the property that
will attract children?
• Railroads
• Swimming Pools
• Construction Sites
• Power lines or
towers
• Man-made ponds
and fountains
• Discarded
appliances
• Abandoned cars
• Farm equipment
• Wells or holes in the
ground
• See Online Checklist
No to
all
The landowner is more likely
to be immune from liability.
Remember to check fees and
dangerous conditions.
Photo: NPS/RTCA

Attractive Nuisances
Natural bodies of water are not considered attractive nuisances.
Landowners have no responsibility to make these“safe” when they
are not designated for swimming.
3. Will children be unable to protect
themselves from danger?
4. Will it be easy to remove the hazard
without hardship, given the nature of the
potential harm?
2. Is it likely that children will access the
property?
1. Do you know of the presence of
hazardous objects on the property that
will attract children?
• Railroads
• Swimming Pools
• Construction Sites
• Power lines or
towers
• Man-made ponds
and fountains
• Discarded
appliances
• Abandoned cars
• Farm equipment
• Wells or holes in the
ground
• See Online Checklist
Landowner is likely to be
liable when children under
18 become injured if
reasonable care is not taken
to eliminate the danger or
protect the children.
Ye
s
Photo: jurisfusion.com

Attractive Nuisances
Case Study: Limited Liability for Drowning in Non-
Swimming Area of Park
This document is a review of case law on drownings in
natural or man-made bodies of water which provide
“open and obvious” dangers. It is common knowledge
that drownings have occurred here. If the area is not
intended to be a swimming area, the owner has no
duty to protect children from the water.
Case Study: Child Assumed Risk of Drowning in
Closed Pool
A 10-year-old girl drowned in a closed swimming pool
while swimming with other children but no adult
supervision or permission. While there was a hole in
the fence that allowed them access, negligence does
not necessarily imply liability, and the child clearly
knew the risks and dangers associated with swimming
in a closed pool, as her mother had instructed her
never to swim in the deep end or without adult
supervision and a sign stated the same.
Photo: Lisa Holzapfel

Dangerous Conditions
Is the landowner aware of any
dangerous conditions on their
property, such as:
• Glass and nails in parking lot
• Barbed wire at tripping level
• Concrete and/or rebar at a river
access or swimming site
Landowners are not liable for
dangerous conditions they are not
aware of and are not legally required
to check their land for places that
might be dangerous.
Don’t forget to check fees and attractive
nuisances
No
Case Study: Fatality in Texas City Park
A college student in Waco, TX was killed after a
natural cliff he was sitting on collapsed underneath
him, causing him to fall approximately 60 feet
to his death. The City of Waco was sued by the
student’s estate, saying that his death was caused
by the gross negligence of the city, thus waiving its
recreational use statute-based immunity from liability.
Thecourtsdeterminedthatalandownergenerallyowes
no duty under the recreational use statute to warn or
protect against the dangers of natural conditions and
that the City did not owe the student a duty in this case.

Landowners are likely to be immune
from liability. Don’t forget to check fees
and attractive nuisances
Yes
Has the landowner taken action to
remove or reduce the risk of injury?
Is the landowner aware of any
dangerous conditions on their
property, such as:
• Glass and nails in parking lot
• Barbed wire at tripping level
• Concrete and/or rebar at a river access
or swimming site
Yes
No
Landowners are not protected if they
know of a dangerous condition or
deliberately cause an injury.
Dangerous Conditions
Photo: Risa Shimoda

Public agencies possess sovereign immunity, a legal privilege by which
governments are protected from being sued for injuries related to recreational use.
Federal Government
The Federal Tort Claims Act allows private parties to sue the United States,
however the federal government has rarely been sued for damages related to
injuries caused by an event that takes place on public lands or waterways.
In general, the federal government has a duty to use ‘reasonable care’ to keep
the premises safe and to guard and warn the visitor from any hidden danger that
presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm.
Note: If you have questions related to the recreational use of public land, contact
the manager of your local land or field office, and if necessary, your state attorney
general with specific questions.
Public Landowners

State and Local Government
State Sovereign Immunity Waiver statutes
provide that, in general, states cannot be held
liable for a recreation-related injury unless a
state specifically waives its immunity.
Most local jurisdictions like counties and cities
have immunity from legal action related to
injury on public land or water.
Public Landowners
(continued)
Recreational Use Easement Limits Liability
A higher level of protection may be affected by an
additional agreement, such as a recreation easement.
Afteralargefloodinthetownof Lyons, Coloradoinitiated
mitigation efforts on a local creek and coordinated with
the state to build a kayaking“play wave.”Most of the land
was owned by the town of Lyons but a ditch company
held an easement and ownership of some of the land. A
recreational use easement limited the ditch company’s
liability.
However, under Colorado law, if the surrounding land
was privately owned, the owners could limit their
liability under the recreational use statute through a
recreational use easement.
Photo: Lisa Holzapfel

Q: I have a trail across my land and I want to open it to boaters, but I
don’t want to get sued. What can I do?
A: Get a copy of your state’s Recreational Use Statute from your local
law library, online, or call American Whitewater (866-BOAT- 4-AW).
Chances are that your state has one that limits your liability
considerably. Check the statute to see what is required to ‘open’ your
land to the public. Most, but not all, states consider the lack of “no
trespassing” signs as implied permission and sufficient to get
protection of the statute. Check your state’s statute.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: I plan to open a private parking area on my property. Is my liability affected if I charge people to use it?
A: In most states, if a landowner charges for the use of his or her land, he or she cannot claim protection from
liability under a Recreational Use Statue. This is mainly because the intent of the statute is to open private land
to public recreational use, not to insulate commercial enterprises from liability. Some states allow a landowner
to charge a small fee for maintenance of the land. Check your state’s statute.
Q: What is ’adverse possession,’and does it affect my liability if I grant public access on my property?
A: Adverse possession is a way for someone other than the landowner to obtain ownership by continual use or
possession of land without permission or objection by the actual landowner. Adverse possession is not
directly tied to liability, but it is still an important issue to be aware of.
Photo: NPS/RTCA

Frequently Asked Questions
• Q: What kind of conduct am
I liable for if I allow people to
access the river from my land?
• A: Most Recreational Use
Statutes protect landowners’
conduct unless it falls under
the definition of ’malicious
conduct’. Generally, this
means that landowners are
liable for dangerous
Q: Do people accessing the river from my land need to sign a waiver so I am protected from liability?
A: Generally, no. Most states’ Recreational Use Statutes protect landowners from liability (with some
limitations), so a waiver is not necessary. To be extra safe, a landowner can post “enter at your own risk” signs
to put users on notice that there may be dangerous conditions on the land. Also, it cannot be stressed enough
that these laws put the responsibility of care on the users and not on the landowners.
Photo: Tom O’Keefe

Frequently Asked Questions
• Q: Suppose emergency medical services
travel across my property for a rescue. Who is
responsible for restoration costs?
• A: This is not so much a question of the
landowner’s exposure to the public, but a
question of whether a private citizen can seek
compensation or other recourse for damage of
Q: If I open my land to public access for recreation, could I become
subject to adverse possession?
A: Generally no. Landowners can open their land to recreational use
with the knowledge that they can close it when they wish without
worrying about the possibility of the public gaining a permanent right
to the land. To help ensure against someone gaining property
ownership via adverse possession, you can post “no trespassing” signs
and restrict entrances with gates. Photo: NPS/RTCA

Adverse Possession: A way to get ownership by continual use or possession of land without permission or
objection by the actual landowner.
Attractive Nuisance: In the law of torts, the attractive nuisance doctrine states that a landowner may be held
liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on
the land that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object or condition.
Duty of Reasonable Care: The land manager has a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises safe and to
guard or warn the visitor from any hidden danger or defect that presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm.
Glossary
Federal Tort Claims Act: Under this law, the United States is liable:
‘for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused
by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of
the Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a
private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with
the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.’
Invitee: Recreationist who enters land for the benefit of the
landowner and is required to pay a fee or provide a service in
exchange for the right of access. The responsibility of the
landowner to the recreationist increases, since a fee or service is
required and the recreationist assumes that the property and
other conditions are safe.
Photo: Tom O’Keefe

Landowner: The legal owner of the land, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises. Some
statutes also consider the holder of an easement an“owner.”
Liability: The quality or state of being obligated or legally responsible for one’s acts or omissions.
Licensee: Someone who enters property with the permission of the landowner and is not required to pay a fee or
render a service for the right of access. In other words, licensees enter property to further their own purposes,
not the landowners’. Landowners have a greater degree of responsibility to licensees than trespassers in that they
have a duty to warn of known dangers.
Malicious Conduct: Action by a landowner who willfully, maliciously, or deliberately causes an injury. Many
courts require actual knowledge of a dangerous condition, knowledge that an injury could result from that
condition, and inaction in the face of such knowledge.
Glossary (cont.)
Negligence: Four elements of negligence must be met for
liability to be established: 1. Existence of Duty 2. Breach of
Duty 3. The Breach of Duty was the proximate (legal) cause of
harm 4. The victim sustained harm
Payment for Use: Most Recreational Use Statutes do not
protect landowners from liability if the landowner opens up
his or her land in exchange for payment. Whether or not a
payment for use takes place seems a relatively easy to
determine. However, the issue does arise in litigation and the
results vary greatly from state to state. Photo: Bill Curry

Recreational Purpose or Use: Definitions usually include activities such as hiking, swimming, fishing, pleasure
driving, nature study, etc. The phrase “includes, but is not limited to” also appears in order to prevent a narrow
interpretation of what constitutes a“recreational use.”
Recreational Use Statute: A term given to legislation generally intended to promote public recreational use of
privately owned land. It grants landowners broad immunity from liability for personal injuries or property
damage suffered by land users pursuing recreational activities on the owner’s land.
Glossary (cont.)
Tort: The legal term for a civil wrong, other than breach of
contract that results from when one person’s action causes
injury to another and for which a remedy may be obtained,
usually in the form of damages.
Trespasser: Someone who enters land uninvited and without
the consent of the landowner. Usually, landowners are only
liable for trespasser injuries that result from willful/malicious
misconduct. A key element excusing landowner liability is
the lack of knowledge of the trespasser's presence.
Sovereign Immunity: A principle with origins in early English common law where the king was immune from
suit by his subjects: he could not be held accountable in courts of his own creation. In general, federal and
state land managers are not liable for injuries sustained on their respective lands.
Photo: NPS/RTCA

RMS thanks the National Park Service for their
support and guidance throughout this research and
review; American Whitewater for their online
resources and expertise of their staff and volunteers;
and the individuals listed below for their time and
energy spent reviewing, editing, and offering
guidance on how best to research and present this
information.
Acknowledgments
Dave Schade - Alaska Department of Natural
Resources
Kevin Colburn - American Whitewater
John Putnam - Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP
Attila Bality, Charlotte Gillis, Julie Isbill, Burnham
Martin, Lelia Mellen, Peggy Pings, Linda Stonier,
Cassie Thomas, Angie Tornes, and Corita Waters -
National Park Service
Photo: NPS/RTCA