HB 1464 Would Allow Private Landowners to be Exempt from User Injuries

[bigtex]

HB 1464 which was requested by WDFW and is sponsored by Representatives Blake, Orcutt, and Chapman would allow private landowners to enter into a public access agreement with WDFW. Those entering into such agreements would NOT be liable for any injuries that users of such lands may incur on those lands, if they do not charge the public an access fee. This is directed at the timber industry. A common excuse some timber companies have said they have closed lands is because of liability concerns, this bill addresses that.

There is also a companion (matching) bill in the Senate, SB 5384 sponsored by Senators Fortunato and Takko.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1464.pdf

[Knocker of rocks]

Am I right in that all this does add verbaige to the existing law allowing WDFW to pay fees (for an unstated reason) and those landowners do not lose their indemnification?  This does nothing with the big timber companies, and because they charge fees they recieve no special release from liability?

[bigtex]

Am I right in that all this does add verbaige to the existing law allowing WDFW to pay fees (for an unstated reason) and those landowners do not lose their indemnification?  This does nothing with the big timber companies, and because they charge fees they recieve no special release from liability?

So the timber companies who currently charge fees could not use this law unless they drop their fee program. This law only applies to those landowners who don't charge a fee. It is WDFW's plan to essentially give these companies funds for access (we give you $, you give the public free access). It is also WDFW's plan to increase the amount of officers and dedicate them to patrolling those contracted lands.

The companies who currently charge fees have it in their contract with the permit purchasers that the company is not liable for any injuries/damages. So it'll be interesting to see if this bill does pass, if any of those who currently have programs would drop there's. Personally, I'd think not.

[Special T]

I don't think they will drop it either because it's about $ not all the other crap they talk about.

[Knocker of rocks]

I don't think they will drop it either because it's about $ not all the other crap they talk about.

And the state wouldn't be able to come up with the type of funds some of them charge for access

[fireweed]

Current law protects a landowner from liability if they allow FREE public recreational access, with an exception. 

The weakness in the current recreational immunity law is the wording excepting "known, dangerous, latent artificial conditions" without warning signs.   Even though there is a recreational immunity law, A dam operator was successfully sued because a boater hit a STUMP while boating in a reservoir, making stumps known artificial dangerous latent conditions without a "caution stumps ahead" sign.

This exception was set up to address uncapped wells, but now pretty much anything manmade that hurts you (stump, trail, road, gate, bridge) without warning signs could be a reason to sue.  It's the reason every forestry gate has a warning sign.  Even trees/snags  could be artificial known dangerous conditions: timber companies KNOW they can fall on your head and KNOW trees can be dangerous. And most trees were  planted by people. A savvy lawyer could make that argument, or tripping while walking down a rutted road.

The court's broadening of what is an "dangerous artificial, latent condition" has made it easier for timber companies to charge, write their own iron-clad release from liability, and force anyone who buys a permit to sign it.  They now have better liability protection that the "guaranteed" protections than the landowner that allows free access under this law.  (It's probably a factor in why most companies won't let your bring friends or family over age 18 and handicapped assistants must be registered).

When commenting on this bill (and its easy to do online now)  ask legislators to fix this loophole too.  (they have tried this before but the lawyers lobbyist screamed).  Something like: Only be able to sue for intentional negligent actions of employees.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I support the bill as a step in the right direction, as fireweed noted it has room for improvement.  However, Washington has such a nanny state government that I am skeptical anyone can successfully claim civil immunity from anything anyone else owns or does in this state.  Everyone gets a participation trophy, anyone who has something bad happen to them deserves a check.  Personal responsibility doesn't seem to exist as far as the State is concerned.

[pd]

With Chairman Blake as the sponsor and the fact this in an agency request bill, this will definitely get a hearing.  You can never tell what will happen after that point, Rep. Blake might or might not push hard for this.  He is a very decent man, but his priorities lie elsewhere.  Personally, I think this is a great idea----let's call the timber companies on their bluff.  This is a good idea on the part of the department.

[Knocker of rocks]

----let's call the timber companies on their bluff.

How does it do that?

[blackdog]

It has been referred to the Judiciary Committee most likely. The trial lawyers will hate it.

[fireweed]

HOUSE BILL  http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1464&Year=2017

Senate Bill:  http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5384&Year=2017

Here's the links directly to the bills.  You can comment via upper right and also sign up for email alerts.  If outdoor recreationists are heard loud and clear, maybe we can overwhelm the lawyers lobby. 

[bigtex]

The House Bill passed out of committee with some technical changes. Reps Shea & Haler who are anti-public lands Tea Party types voted against the bill. It now goes to the Rules Committee which will determine if it'll go up for a full house vote.

[fireweed]

...and it looks like the lawyers also spoke against it.  Anything that expands limits to liability gets their lobbyist's "thumbs down" no matter how much it might improve access for the public. 

[bigtex]

HB 1464 passed the House today 89-7. Several of the 7 in opposition were the anti-public lands Tea Party reps.

[Axle]

This is what already existed:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210

It helps when a land owner is not wanting to risk being sued.