ACTION ALERT: CT Legislature To take up new Bill on

Okay folks... If you plan on visiting CT for recreation between now and well... when you die please take a moment to help us out and voice some concern over the below:

http://newtown.patch.com/blog_posts/action-alert-municipal-liability-protection-law-on-the-chopping-block CT Rec Use Statue on the Chopping Block

This past fall the CT Legislature passed a new Rec Use Bill which affords local munis and utilities liability protection from lawsuits by folks recreating on public lands. That bill was a MAJOR step forward for all recreational groups This new bill being proposed to attempt to curtail its reach and clearly seems like a bill by lawyers for lawyers... NOT THE PUBLIC.

PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO WRITE OR CALL OUR LEGISLATURE.

Morgan Patterson
Access Fund Regional Coordinator for CT

Link didn't work for me, here is one that does.

The change is that the following would be exempt from the liability protection:

• public beach, boardwalk, designated spectator area, structure to provide seating for spectators at such pool, beach, boardwalk, field, court or playground, paved sidewalk open to the public for pedestrian use

The following are already exempt as of last July:

• swimming pool, playing field or court, playground, building with electrical service, or machinery...within the possession and control of the municipality

I agree with adding bleachers/seating to the exempt list, as well as boardwalks, since those are structures that could cause injury if they failed due to negligence. Adding paved sidewalks and beaches don't seem as obvious to me, but overall I'm not that concerned by this bill.

I believe that failure of a structure due to negligence is currently not covered under the rec use statue and that munis would be liable - but im not 100%. Yes, the impacts to climbing areas is minimal with the exception of shoreline climbing, but if they start with this and it passes without any resistance I would bet there will be a plethora of attempts to manipulate the bill further down the line so lawyers can continue to press suits and make a livelyhood. Secondly, where do you hold the line? Sure make shorelines/beaches a liability but not the park next to the beach?

There are MANY other states that have broad rec use statues that don't have these one off exceptions and don't have these issues.

Morgan Patterson wrote:I believe that failure of a structure due to negligence is currently not covered under the rec use statue and that munis would be liable

They would not be liable, unless the owner charged a fee for access. §52-557g

Morgan Patterson wrote:if they start with this and it passes without any resistance I would bet there will be a plethora of attempts to manipulate the bill further down the line

Pure speculation and not a convincing reason to oppose it, especially when there are other legitimate reasons.

For example, "boardwalks" and "paved walkways" are rather vague, and could arguably mean wooden steps/bridges and paved sections of hiking trails. "Beaches" could mean any sandy shoreline, including hiking trails there. I think this bill should at least be more clearly worded.

I think citing other states' rec use statutes is also a good suggestion if you're going to contact your representative.

From the text of the proposed change:
"(2) "Land" means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty, except that if the owner is a municipality, political subdivision of the state, municipal corporation, special district or water or sewer district: "

The part that concerns me is the exception if the owner is a municipality, political subdivision of the state, municipal corporation, special district or water or sewer district.