Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
01/31/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB7 | |
| HB25 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 25 - RECREATIONAL LAND USE LIABILITY/ADV. POSS 2:05:57 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to landowners' immunity for allowing use of land without charge for a recreational activity; relating to landowners' liability where landowner conduct involves gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct; relating to claims of adverse possession and prescriptive easements, or similar claims; and providing for an effective date." 2:06:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, one of the bill's prime sponsors, said that HB 25 will raise the standard of liability for private landowners who provide free public access to their land for recreational use. Additionally, that free public access cannot be used as the basis for a claim of adverse possession or prescriptive easement. House Bill 25 is intended to expand the recreational opportunities of Alaskans while also protecting the landowner; however, a landowner will not be protected by the bill if he/she either charges for access or is guilty of intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct. He then offered some examples of situations that he believed might be construed as intentional misconduct or grossly negligent conduct. Although there is some protection under current statute for owners of unimproved land, what constitutes unimproved land, he opined, is ambiguous; for example a hayfield that hasn't been used for 20 years could still be considered improved land and thus the owner of that hayfield would not be protected under current statute. In conclusion, he relayed that members' packets contain numerous letters of support for HB 25 and similar past legislation. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether the bill is meant to cover corporately-owned private land. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that any land held privately would be covered under the bill as long as the landowner allows free access, but any state or municipal land would not be covered. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, lines 9-10, which says in part, "A landowner that directly or indirectly allows a recreational activity on the landowner's land without charge", and asked whether the bill would cover a landowner that either doesn't allow or doesn't knowingly allow recreational activity. For example, would there be immunity for the landowner who prohibits the use of his/her land, and, if not, should there be? REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that the language "indirectly allows" would cover landowners that don't knowingly allow a recreational activity. With regard to the landowner who specifically prohibits use of his/her land, he offered his belief that that landowner would have other legal remedies available. House Bill 25 is only meant to cover landowners that do allow free public access. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the phrase, "indirectly allows" refers to someone who "doesn't prevent", and suggested that alternative language might be clearer. He said he is concerned about a situation in which a trespasser injures himself/herself and the landowner who prohibits the use of his/her land would end up having a higher standard of duty than the landowner who allows free use of his/her land; that is not a fair situation for the [first] landowner to be in. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated his belief that the former landowner would have other legal remedies available to him/her, adding that the bill was not designed to address the issue of trespass. 2:16:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that on his [recreational] property he has "No Hunting" and "No Trespassing" signs, that he's not there very much, that he knows that people ride their horses and ski on his land, and that he doesn't really care that they do - it doesn't bother him at all. He asked whether, even though he's posted signs and thus those people technically are trespassing, he is "indirectly" allowing people to use his property because he's not there often and he doesn't care that people are using his property. In his situation, he asked, would he be immunized under the bill or would he have no immunity because those people are trespassing. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that it would be the latter - Representative Samuels would not be immunized under the bill. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he doubts that Representative Samuels has posted adequate signage from a legal standpoint, suggested that the issue of liability for landowners who prohibit the use of their land ought to be addressed in a separate bill, and opined that unless Representative Samuels is enforcing his "no hunting" and "no trespassing" wishes, he is, in effect, allowing use of the land. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to comments, said he has researched the attractive-nuisance doctrine, paraphrased portions of a March 31, 2006, Legislative Legal and Research Services memorandum discussing that issue, and offered his belief that the bill adequately addresses that issue, particularly with regard to recreational activity. The committee took an at-ease from 2:22 p.m. to 2:24 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to further comments regarding the aforementioned memorandum, offered his belief that the courts are likely to disregard the attractive-nuisance doctrine, particularly if the bill passes. 2:26:33 PM KATIE SHOWS, Staff to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Seaton, one of the bill's prime sponsors, in response to a question, offered her understanding that the aforementioned memorandum discussed different alternatives as they applied to a similar bill offered in the previous legislature. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that HB 25 is tailored to supporting recreational use - encouraging landowners to agree to expanding the free use of their private lands - and opined that if the legislature wishes to immunize all private landowners from negligence regardless of whether trespass occurs, it should use a different bill as the vehicle. CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that Representative Samuels's concern is that HB 25 will result in there being a different standard of liability for those private landowners who refuse to allow public access - by placing "No Trespassing" signs on one's property, one's rights are thereby lessened. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS concurred with that summation, adding, "If we're going to lower the liability of a property owner, can you lower the liability of the property owner who posts his property as well as somebody who doesn't post his property." He said he agrees with the concept of the bill but would also like to go further. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that doing so would move away from, and thus defeat, the purpose of the bill. In response to a question, he offered his understanding that HB 25 is identical to legislation that was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee in 2006. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he agrees with the concept of the bill and is merely attempting to ensure that there are no technical problems with it. 2:32:10 PM MS. SHOWS clarified that the aforementioned memorandum addressed issues discussed internally between the drafter and the sponsor's previous staff. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized the memorandum as ambiguous on the issue of the attractive-nuisance doctrine, particularly given that the drafter himself said, "It is not clear how the doctrine" would be affected by [that prior] legislation. Representative Gruenberg indicated that he views such statements as red flags, highlighting for him the fact that a particular point ought to be clarified in statute. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she shares some of the concerns regarding having different standards for those who wish to keep the public off their land, adding that the bill doesn't currently address the statute pertaining to trespass, and that she would like to review that statute to ensure that passage of HB 25 isn't creating a dichotomy. If there is a problem in that regard, the problem might need to be addressed via separate legislation, she remarked. CHAIR RAMRAS suggested holding the bill over to allow the sponsor time to address members' concerns. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he agrees with the intent of the bill, but remarked that it seems odd to have a different liability standard for someone who posts "No Trespassing" signs on his/her property even when he/she is doing so with goal of protecting the public. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that AS 09.65.200 appears to address the issue of liability pertaining to unimproved land, but suggested that members review that provision as well before the bill is heard next. [HB 25 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|