Welcome! This is designed 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.
Public Access Guide for Water Trails and River ManagersRisa Shimoda
Welcome! 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. This is not a legal document, but it may help readers learn fundamental concepts and where to look for advice regarding the provision of public access for recreation.
Public Access Guide for Water Trails and River ManagersRisa Shimoda
Welcome! 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. This is not a legal document, but it may help readers learn fundamental concepts and where to look for advice regarding the provision of public access for recreation.
To gain the edge in complex job application processes is a science. To move smoothly to interview applicants must nail their response to selection criteria. Director of Harvest Recruitment presented on this topic at the Geelong Jobs Fair today.
The Public Trust Doctrine, Water Rights and Public Use Liability of Landowner...rshimoda2014
David Schade - Chief, Water Resources Section, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water
Risa Shimoda - The Shimoda Group, LLC
This discussion focuses on the conflicts of traditional water rights and the public trust doctrine of public use of waters.
An overview of a representative sample of different States current status with Public Trust and how that can /is in conflict with traditional water rights is discussed.
To gain the edge in complex job application processes is a science. To move smoothly to interview applicants must nail their response to selection criteria. Director of Harvest Recruitment presented on this topic at the Geelong Jobs Fair today.
The Public Trust Doctrine, Water Rights and Public Use Liability of Landowner...rshimoda2014
David Schade - Chief, Water Resources Section, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water
Risa Shimoda - The Shimoda Group, LLC
This discussion focuses on the conflicts of traditional water rights and the public trust doctrine of public use of waters.
An overview of a representative sample of different States current status with Public Trust and how that can /is in conflict with traditional water rights is discussed.
Susan Farady, Seawalls: Legal Implications of Shoreline Protectionriseagrant
BeachSAMP Stakeholder Meeting
December 9th, 2013
Susan Farady, Director and adjunct faculty
Marine Affairs Institute, RI Sea Grant Legal Program
Roger Williams University School of Law, Bristol RI
Traditional Water Rights & Reservations of Water - A River Management Perspec...rshimoda2014
Dave W. Schade - Section Chief, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Mining, Land and Water / Water Resources Section
This presents an overview of the concepts of traditional water rights vs the more recent concept of Reservations of Water with a review of west and east coast issues.
In the current times, many systems have allocated 100 per cent of the water, yet there is a growing recognition that wildlife must have water to survive. In many states, including Alaska, water “rights” can be held which keep the water in the river/lake for wildlife and other purposes. However, that does not remove the conflicts which are already apparent, and at times, conflicts and priorities for the future.
Waterkeepers of the Great Lakes comment on CSO Public NotificationLOWaterkeeper
On September 23, 2016, Waterkeepers of the Great Lakes Region, including Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Swim Guide, signed onto comments for the “Public Notification for Combined Sewer Overflows in the Great Lakes."
A summary of recent legislative reform in New Jersey regarding municipal redevelopment and eminent domain law, as well as a recent decision from the NJ Supreme Court regarding partial takings for beach replenishment projects.
Introduction to Stormwater BMP's in North CarolinaKurt Bland
This presentation covers the basic elements of the issues surrounding storm water BMP requirements in the state of North Carolina. It is strictly informational, and is intended to explain, in lay man's terms, the environmental, legal, and economical issues surrounding storm water BMP management for developers, owners, and managers of commercial real estate and institutional campus facilities. I have been developing and tweaking the information in this presentation since 2007 for the purpose of educating property managers, facility managers, landscape architects, landscape workers, and a variety of other groups interested in the topic of storm water. Many of the photographs I have taken myself, whereas others were found on the internet. A small percentage of slides, and much of the knowledge shared, have come from presentations and certification classes I have attended, given by Bill Lord and Bill Hunt at NCSU. I share this information to raise awareness of the importance of protecting our natural resources by proactively taking responsibility for the run off we generate when converting greenfield sites into impervious surfaces that contribute to flash and water quality issues downstream.
EPA Region 7, EPA, Region 7, Waters of the United States, Water Security, Nonpoint Source, NPS, Nutrients, Ammonia, Kansas, KS, NHD, National Hydrography Dataset, Drury Creek, Cheyene County, dam permit, finding leaks, fixing leaks, drought, dry summer, Chesapeake Bay, Mississippi River Basin, municipal lagoons
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Public Access Guide for Landowners, Water Trails& River Managers
1. Public Access Guide for
Landowners, Water Trails
& River Managers
Photo: River Management Society
2. 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
3. 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 must 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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.
10. 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
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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 conditions on
their land only if they know of the condition and purposely choose
not to warn others of that condition. Landowners are not responsible
for unknown conditions of their land and are not required to ensure
the safety of their land should they open it up for public recreational
use. Check your state’s statute.
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
15. 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 private property by the public or a government
agency. Contact the jurisdiction responsible for the emergency in question.
Q: Is it true that a landowner can still be sued by a visitor who suffered an injury, but that the court should
dismiss it? Will the landowner still have to deal with lawyers’ fees and the court system?
A: Recreational use statutes provide considerable protection to landowners but someone can still choose to sue a
landowner. In many states, if the person suing the landowner loses, they have to pay the landowner’s legal fees.
There have been few successful lawsuits against a landowner by someone recreating on their land. To learn about
coverage of legal fees in case of a lawsuit, review homeowners’insurance policies and contact legal counsel.
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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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