01-15-2011, 07:33 PM
Youser, this addresses your concerns:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent..._0520-.htm
The Hawai‘i Recreational Use Statute, HRS §520 1-6.
Duty of care of owner limited. Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 520-6, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes, or to persons entering for a purpose in response to a recreational user who requires assistance, either direct or indirect, including but not limited to rescue, medical care, or other form of assistance. [L 1969, c 186, §3; am L 1997, c 272, §2]
Encompasses any land which is used for recreation; purpose of statute is to encourage landowners to allow others to use their land without threat of liability;
§520-4 Liability of owner limited. (a) Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 520-6, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not:
(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;
(2) Confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed;
(3) Assume responsibility for, or incur liability for, any injury to person or property caused by an act of omission or commission of such persons; and
(4) Assume responsibility for, or incur liability for, any injury to person or persons who enter the premises in response to an injured recreational user.
(b) An owner of land who is required or compelled to provide access or parking for such access through or across the owner's property because of state or county land use, zoning, or planning law, ordinance, rule, ruling, or order, to reach property used for recreation purposes, or as part of a habitat conservation plan, or safe harbor agreement, shall be afforded the same protection as to such access, including parking for such access, as an owner of land who invites or permits any person to use that owner's property for recreational purposes under subsection (a).
_____________________________________
One should read the statutes in their entirety as linked. Those were highlights.
It sense you can use this as a defense; therefore someone can sue, but if you meet the requirements, they would not prevail.
It's key to the immunity that you do not accept any fee or charge for entry or use.
I think it would apply perfectly to the situation in HPP. Not the landowner's fault if someone gets pulled off the cliffs, unless the landowner acted with malice.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent..._0520-.htm
The Hawai‘i Recreational Use Statute, HRS §520 1-6.
Duty of care of owner limited. Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 520-6, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes, or to persons entering for a purpose in response to a recreational user who requires assistance, either direct or indirect, including but not limited to rescue, medical care, or other form of assistance. [L 1969, c 186, §3; am L 1997, c 272, §2]
Encompasses any land which is used for recreation; purpose of statute is to encourage landowners to allow others to use their land without threat of liability;
§520-4 Liability of owner limited. (a) Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 520-6, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreational purposes does not:
(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;
(2) Confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed;
(3) Assume responsibility for, or incur liability for, any injury to person or property caused by an act of omission or commission of such persons; and
(4) Assume responsibility for, or incur liability for, any injury to person or persons who enter the premises in response to an injured recreational user.
(b) An owner of land who is required or compelled to provide access or parking for such access through or across the owner's property because of state or county land use, zoning, or planning law, ordinance, rule, ruling, or order, to reach property used for recreation purposes, or as part of a habitat conservation plan, or safe harbor agreement, shall be afforded the same protection as to such access, including parking for such access, as an owner of land who invites or permits any person to use that owner's property for recreational purposes under subsection (a).
_____________________________________
One should read the statutes in their entirety as linked. Those were highlights.
It sense you can use this as a defense; therefore someone can sue, but if you meet the requirements, they would not prevail.
It's key to the immunity that you do not accept any fee or charge for entry or use.
I think it would apply perfectly to the situation in HPP. Not the landowner's fault if someone gets pulled off the cliffs, unless the landowner acted with malice.