One of my old hang gliding friends sent me this, it seems to be a good thing.

States’ Recreational Use Statutes
STATE OF IDAHO
I.C. § 36-1601 to § 36-1604

1. "Airstrips" means either improved or unimproved landing areas used by
pilots to land, park, take off, unload, load and taxi aircraft. Airstrips shall
not include landing areas which are or may become eligible to receive
federal funding pursuant to the federal airport and airway improvement act
of 1982 and subsequent amendments thereto.
2. "Land" means private or public land, roads, airstrips, trails, water,
watercourses, irrigation dams, water control structures, headgates, private
or public ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment
when attached to or used on the realty.
3. "Owner" means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant
or person in control of the premises.
4. "Recreational purposes" includes, but is not limited to, any of the
following activities or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing,
swimming, boating, rafting, tubing, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure
driving, the flying of aircraft, bicycling, running, playing on playground
equipment, skateboarding, athletic competition, nature study, water skiing,
animal riding, motorcycling, snowmobiling, recreational vehicles, winter
sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic,
geological or scientific sites, when done without charge of the owner.
(c) Owner Exempt from Warning. An owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises
safe for entry 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. Neither the installation of
a sign or other form of warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity, nor any
modification made for the purpose of improving the safety of others, nor the failure to maintain or keep
in place any sign, other form of warning, or modification made to improve safety, shall create liability
on the part of an owner of land where there is no other basis for such liability.
(d) Owner Assumes No Liability. An owner of land or equipment who either directly or
indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such property for recreational purposes
does not thereby:
1. Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose.
2. Confer upon such 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 of such persons.
(e) Provisions Apply to Leased Public Land. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions
of this section shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased to the
state or any subdivision thereof for recreational purposes.
(f) Provisions Apply to Land Subject to a Conservation Easement. Unless otherwise agreed in
writing, the provisions of this section shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner
of land subject to a conservation easement to any governmental entity or nonprofit organization.
(g) Owner Not Required to Keep Land Safe. Nothing in this section shall be construed to:
1. Create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to persons or
property.
2. Relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes
from any obligation which he may have in the absence of this section to
exercise care in his use of such land and in his activities thereon, or from
legal consequences or failure to employ such care.
3. Apply to any person or persons who for compensation permit the land
to be used for recreational purposes.
(h) User Liable for Damages. Any person using the land of another for recreational purposes,
with or without permission, shall be liable for any damage to property, livestock or crops which he
may cause while on said property.

courierguy - this is a very good thing.

Our New Mexico backcountry flyer group (NM-RAC) - just formed - has made revision of New Mexico's liability law for private property owners who allow public recreational use of their property a major objective. Our existing law provides language similar to Idaho's, but does not specifically mention aviation as one of the recreational uses for which liability protection is granted. We need to add aviation to the several categories of recreational use.

Because so many of New Mexico's backcountry airstrips are privately owned, this is a big issue for us ... that is, if we want to convince private airstrip owners to open up their facilities for us pilots.

The Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF) is helping NM-RAC with this effort, which will likely take at least another year or possibly several to get the changes made in our law.

It looks like Idaho is in very good shape with the law that you cited in your post.

The RAF is helping because we've had this law in Montana for a long time and actually pertains to all recreational activities in the state. Basically it says that if I own land and let you use it for any recreational purpose I owe you the least duty of care. In laymans terms as long as I don't go out with the express purpose of hurting you I cannot be sued. For example even if I know I have big giant holes in my runway and do nothing about them and know you are going to land there and don't tell you about them I am not liable when you kill yourself. You assume all risk. Here is a summary, a lengthy pdf is online here:

http://www.montanapilots.org/legislatio ... _lands.pdf


Because Montana is uniquely endowed with scenic landscapes and areas
rich in recreational value,(9) Montana's recreational use statute(10)
was enacted to encourage landowners to make their lands freely
available to the public by limiting the landowners' tort liability.(11)
In Montana, a person who uses property for recreational purposes is
owed no duty of care by the landowner with respect to the condition of
the property, except that the landowner is liable to the person for any
injury to person or property for an act or omission that constitutes
willful or wanton misconduct.(12) This restriction on a landowner's
liability applies to both private and governmental agency
landowners;(13) is applicable regardless of whether the landowner has
or has not given his permission to use the property;(14) and applies to
land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways, and any improvements,
buildings, structures, machinery, and equipment on the property(15)

I have some folks that want to land at my place. Anybody out there that has a copy of an agreement to hold harmless that would work. It would be bad enough to have sombody bend up there plane but worse if I had to pay for it.

Tim

qmdv wrote:I have some folks that want to land at my place. Anybody out there that has a copy of an agreement to hold harmless that would work. It would be bad enough to have sombody bend up there plane but worse if I had to pay for it.

Tim

Tim - go the the Utah spring fly-in thread, page 8, and you'll find a release of liability form for Cave-Man airstrip. I can't vouch for it's usefulness, but it's probably a good place to start.

This is something I copied from Tex McClatchy, he had a pretty crazy home airstrip. I have no idea if it would "work." Its main purpose is getting peoples attention, letting them know they are about to do something dangerous. I heard that once about car seat belts.


THIS AGREEMENT ELIMINATES YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS! READ IT CAREFULLY!

ACCEPTANCE OF ALL RISKS/RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS


I, ______________________________________ by signing below, understand, agree, and promise as follows:

1.Taking off, landing and flying in light aircraft , whether I am the pilot, or a passenger, is a dangerous activity, involving many unpredictable, unforseen, and sometimes unavoidable risks, including the risk of serious injury or death. These dangers increase whenever such aircraft take off or land on short, unimproved and primitive landing strips. These dangers include, but are not limited to: cross winds, rough terrain, wildlife hazards, air and ground traffic hazards, insufficient landing or take off distance, lack of fire prevention and suppression equipment and lack of emergency medical care.

2. I intend to use the short, unimproved, and primitive landing strip owned by ______________________________to land and takeoff in various aircraft, either as a pilot or passenger, and I understand that even if I use my best judgement and skills, it may be dangerous. Some of the dangers may be unavoidable and some of the dangers may be caused by someone else's negligence or carelessness.

3. Even though i have received suggestions, and other information, regarding the best and safest procedures to follow when using Mr. Simko's airstrip, I recognize that these suggestions or other information are not promises, or warranties. I am entirely responsible for determining how to operate my aircraft, or if I am a passenger, the pilot of the aircraft is entirely responsible for the operation of the aircraft.

4. It is my free and voluntary choice to accept the many risks inherent in using _______________________ airstrip. I accept both the risks I can understand and appreciate and the risks that are unforseen and unpredictable and that may be caused by someone's negligence and carelessness. I have decided to accept these risks and to voluntarily forego my legal right to seek compensation in a civil law suit in the event i am injured or killed or my property is damaged due to someone else's fault. I consider the opportunity to use _____________________ airstrip and to participate in flying activities to be worth this sacrifice.

5. I release ________________________ from liability for any and all damage to my property, injuries to my person, or even my death that results from the use of Mr. Simko's landing strip in Inkom, Idaho, or that results from flying in aircraft, either as a pilot or a passenger, over or near____________________ landing strip and property in __________________________, even if such damage or injuries is caused by someone else's negligence or carelessness.

6. I am an adult, over the age of 21 years and sign this agreement willingly and freely after having read and carefully considered its meaning and effect.

DATED THIS __ DAY OF ____________, 20__

qmdv wrote:I have some folks that want to land at my place. Anybody out there that has a copy of an agreement to hold harmless that would work. It would be bad enough to have sombody bend up there plane but worse if I had to pay for it.

Tim

I can envision plenty of scenarios where that agreement won't mean diddly. Imagine some low time pilot signs your agreement, rents a plane, and then cartwheels it down your runway. He might not come after you, but imagine if the owner of the plane is underinsured, has a high deductible, etc. If you've got more money than the poor sod who bent it up, guess who the lawyers are going after! They will claim that by offering a written agreement, you are advertising a runway, and then they will rattle off to the judge or jury all of the deficiencies of your runway (improper drainage, improper threshold markings, ugly bartender, etc.). Passengers or family members might also come after you. Maybe someone like Lowflybye can offer some advice regarding whether or not my concerns are valid.

I will eventually be in the same situation. I'm intending to put an airstrip on the barren shithole in Nevada, hopefully this summer, and I'd like to have an open pilot policy, but I'd like to know how to do it without incurring liability. My final thought for my situation is that I'm going to drill a well. If I don't hit good water and plenty of it (Pershing County requires 15 gpm to issue a building permit for a residence) then I will develop the airstrip and register it with the FAA. Then I will sell the whole place to the BLM with the restriction that the airstrip is to be kept open and maintained. That way I can use it and not have to pay the taxes! The BLM actually wants my land because it's a private holding within the Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area. That probably won't work for Tim though!

My other thought is that one could publish the coordinates of the strip for information purposes and publish that it is closed to the public and put a big X at each end of the strip. Verbal invitations could then be offered to a select group of trusted pilots who meet a couple of simple criteria such as fly their own plane, have insurance, and have some minimal level of experience.

kevbert wrote:

qmdv wrote:I have some folks that want to land at my place. Anybody out there that has a copy of an agreement to hold harmless that would work. It would be bad enough to have sombody bend up there plane but worse if I had to pay for it.

Tim

I can envision plenty of scenarios where that agreement won't mean diddly. Imagine some low time pilot signs your agreement, rents a plane, and then cartwheels it down your runway. He might not come after you, but imagine if the owner of the plane is underinsured, has a high deductible, etc. If you've got more money than the poor sod who bent it up, guess who the lawyers are going after! They will claim that by offering a written agreement, you are advertising a runway, and then they will rattle off to the judge or jury all of the deficiencies of your runway (improper drainage, improper threshold markings, ugly bartender, etc.). Passengers or family members might also come after you. Maybe someone like Lowflybye can offer some advice regarding whether or not my concerns are valid.

I will eventually be in the same situation. I'm intending to put an airstrip on the barren shithole in Nevada, hopefully this summer, and I'd like to have an open pilot policy, but I'd like to know how to do it without incurring liability. My final thought for my situation is that I'm going to drill a well. If I don't hit good water and plenty of it (Pershing County requires 15 gpm to issue a building permit for a residence) then I will develop the airstrip and register it with the FAA. Then I will sell the whole place to the BLM with the restriction that the airstrip is to be kept open and maintained. That way I can use it and not have to pay the taxes! The BLM actually wants my land because it's a private holding within the Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area. That probably won't work for Tim though!

My other thought is that one could publish the coordinates of the strip for information purposes and publish that it is closed to the public and put a big X at each end of the strip. Verbal invitations could then be offered to a select group of trusted pilots who meet a couple of simple criteria such as fly their own plane, have insurance, and have some minimal level of experience.

15 GPM??? That's a pretty stringent requirement, surprising in such a dry state. A slow (purposely, so as to not draw the well down too far) pumping, much less then 1 horse well pump, combined with a 1,000 gallon or larger storage tank, can make even a 1.5 gpm well very livable. I did it for 25+ years on my old property. A separate small sub pump in the storage tank provides city type flow and pressure, while the deep sub pump does its thing. This scenario is real efficient especially when solar powered, way better then a big multi horse pump, you pump a little all day and it adds up (1,000 GPD in my case). You may want to check with the zoners, and see if they have a caveat about the 15 gpm requirement, it may be waived if you go the storage tank route. I'd hate to see that screw up your development plans for your property!

courierguy wrote:
15 GPM??? That's a pretty stringent requirement, surprising in such a dry state. A slow (purposely, so as to not draw the well down too far) pumping, much less then 1 horse well pump, combined with a 1,000 gallon or larger storage tank, can make even a 1.5 gpm well very livable. I did it for 25+ years on my old property. A separate small sub pump in the storage tank provides city type flow and pressure, while the deep sub pump does its thing. This scenario is real efficient especially when solar powered, way better then a big multi horse pump, you pump a little all day and it adds up (1,000 GPD in my case). You may want to check with the zoners, and see if they have a caveat about the 15 gpm requirement, it may be waived if you go the storage tank route. I'd hate to see that screw up your development plans for your property!

The county passed so many requirements that it's clear that they want to really limit growth. Actually, the water requirement isn't that limiting for most parts of Nevada. Since it's the Great Basin and the water doesn't drain to the ocean, there's a lot of ground water everywhere. Of course, in some places it tastes like salt! My place is in a valley that's 1000 ft. higher than the surrounding desert, so I might have trouble. If I can get a little, then yes, I can petition the county for a waiver for a storage tank. But at that point, it really depends on how well one fits into the good ole boy network, and I will probably get kicked to the curb.

Does anyone know if there are other states besides ID, MT, and NM that have or are considering these "least duty of care" laws?

kevbert wrote:

courierguy wrote:

Does anyone know if there are other states besides ID, MT, and NM that have or are considering these "least duty of care" laws?

The best source of info to answer your question would be the RAF. They keep tabs on such things all across the country.

Most likely, Nevada is like other states where there is already a law that provides liability protection to private property owners who allow public access to their land for recreational purposes. The best laws specifically call out aviation as one of the protected recreational uses. But otherwise you're left with a somewhat non-specific protection - that's the situation now in NM that we hope to change next year.

Bear in mind that "public use" is not limited to your hunting or flying buddies .. you would literally have to open your airstrip to the general public in order to qualify for the liability exemption.

The other factor to keep in mind is that anybody can sue anybody for any reason at any time, even if it's just a nuisance lawsuit. Even if your state law provides liability protection for public recreational use ..... because an aggressive plaintiff's lawyer can and will try to argue that you the owner were negligent in some way that negated the law's protection.

Consequently, if you are an airstrip owner you probably ought to seriously consider buying liability insurance, such as umbrella liability coverage, of at least $1 million or more cap, and make sure that the policy includes aviation use coverage, and includes a duty to defend you by the insurance company. Much as I hate to say so, you probably ought to consult an attorney on the insurance as well as on any waiver agreement language to require visiting pilots to sign as a condition of use.

nmflyguy wrote:
Bear in mind that "public use" is not limited to your hunting or flying buddies .. you would literally have to open your airstrip to the general public in order to qualify for the liability exemption.

The other factor to keep in mind is that anybody can sue anybody for any reason at any time, even if it's just a nuisance lawsuit. Even if your state law provides liability protection for public recreational use ..... because an aggressive plaintiff's lawyer can and will try to argue that you the owner were negligent in some way that negated the law's protection.

Consequently, if you are an airstrip owner you probably ought to seriously consider buying liability insurance, such as umbrella liability coverage, of at least $1 million or more cap, and make sure that the policy includes aviation use coverage, and includes a duty to defend you by the insurance company. Much as I hate to say so, you probably ought to consult an attorney on the insurance as well as on any waiver agreement language to require visiting pilots to sign as a condition of use.

It is not a required part of the law in Montana that you have to open your airstrip to everybody to be covered under this law. I can open it to only one friend and I'm still covered. If your law requires this you have a bad law. Second it has not been the case that people are being sued simply to see if anything sticks. Just not happening here.

Bonanza Man wrote:

nmflyguy wrote:
Bear in mind that "public use" is not limited to your hunting or flying buddies .. you would literally have to open your airstrip to the general public in order to qualify for the liability exemption.

The other factor to keep in mind is that anybody can sue anybody for any reason at any time, even if it's just a nuisance lawsuit. Even if your state law provides liability protection for public recreational use ..... because an aggressive plaintiff's lawyer can and will try to argue that you the owner were negligent in some way that negated the law's protection.

Consequently, if you are an airstrip owner you probably ought to seriously consider buying liability insurance, such as umbrella liability coverage, of at least $1 million or more cap, and make sure that the policy includes aviation use coverage, and includes a duty to defend you by the insurance company. Much as I hate to say so, you probably ought to consult an attorney on the insurance as well as on any waiver agreement language to require visiting pilots to sign as a condition of use.

It is not a required part of the law in Montana that you have to open your airstrip to everybody to be covered under this law. I can open it to only one friend and I'm still covered. If your law requires this you have a bad law. Second it has not been the case that people are being sued simply to see if anything sticks. Just not happening here.

BonanzaMan - I'm afraid you're wrong about people not suing without real cause or justification. Exhibit A is the recent $89 million jury award against Lycoming, in which the families of the deceased pilot and/or passengers sued Lycoming, blaming them for the fatal accident, despite the fact that NTSB fully investigated the accident and determined that the cause was pilot error (aircraft over gross weight, and failure to maintain proper trim), and also showed through post-accident examination of the engine and eyewitness testimony from folks on the ground that the engine worked fine right up until impact. Lycoming was sued anyway because they're a "big" company with deep pockets. Maybe the average backcountry airstrip owner isn't perceived as an easy litigation target with similarly deep pockets, but some such owners are. If you own any assets at all, they can be taken from you. Having insurance not only provides a means of paying a litigation judgement and legal fees, but you also have a big insurance company and their lawyers on your side.

Sure, the Lycoming jury award is likely to be overturned ... but how many of us can afford to pay lawyers' fees through a jury trial and the appeals process? Virtually any kind of serious lawsuit is likely to cost well into six figures, even if you win. In many, if not most cases, your attorney is going to urge you to settle out of court, even if you're blameless.

In fact, even if you have a great liability law like Idaho's, there are still ways for an agressive attorney to get around the provisions. In the Idaho law, you're free of liability only if you don't charge a fee. Let's say somebody cracks up on your airstrip, and during the course of the visit, the pilot or his/her passengers makes a "gift" to you .. say, a bottle of fine wine or single malt or some elk steaks or whatever as a gesture of friendship and courtesy. Sure it's not intended as "payment", but again, the people likely to sue you weren't there, and don't care, they're just looking for an excuse to collect. You'll still have to argue in court, and as a result you'll still have to pay up, one way or the other. Unless this kind of challenge to the law has already been litigated and settled the applicable legal theory, you can find yourself the unintended "test case".

Unfortunately, these are the realities of our "litigious society".

DELETED...double post...

Couple of quick thoughts on the issue for your consideration.

1) You cannot sidestep strict liability. Strict liability means that a person is legally responsible for damage caused by an act or omission regardless of fault or intention. Strict liability applies whenever the legal system deems an activity inherently dangerous...

2) A person cannot waive the rights of a third party. This means that even though a person / pilot signs a "use at your own risk" agreement and "hold harmless" agreement, they cannot speak for their significant other, family, or passengers. The third party still retains all rights to recovery from loss through a lawsuit.

3) Even in states limiting the liability (statutory law) you can still get sued in most cases. Lawsuits sets the precedence for laws in many cases and have changed them in other cases. This is what is known as judicial law and landmark decisions.

4) If you get sued without insurance you are on the hook to defend yourself even if the case is frivolous.

5) There is no such thing as an umbrella policy for aviation risks and in most all cases any aviation risk is excluded under your homeowners / landowners policy.

kevbert wrote:My other thought is that one could publish the coordinates of the strip for information purposes and publish that it is closed to the public and put a big X at each end of the strip. Verbal invitations could then be offered to a select group of trusted pilots who meet a couple of simple criteria such as fly their own plane, have insurance, and have some minimal level of experience.

Careful with the X on your runway...the FAA considers that a closed runway and you may wind up with some issues landing on it outside of an emergency situation...especially if you have any form of accident on it. Just list it as Private on a sectional and have the standing NOTAM of prior permission required before landing. That will do more for you than the X.

lowflybye wrote:Couple of quick thoughts on the issue for your consideration.


5) There is no such thing as an umbrella policy for aviation risks and in most all cases any aviation risk is excluded under your homeowners / landowners policy.

lowflybye - maybe what would be helpful to know, since you're the resident aviation risk guy on this board ... what sorts of insurance products are available that would specifically cover the risks of private airstrip owners/operators? What kind of premiums are typically charged? How much difference does a specific state's owner liability laws make with respect to those premiums?

lowflybye wrote:Couple of quick thoughts on the issue for your consideration.

1) You cannot sidestep strict liability. Strict liability means that a person is legally responsible for damage caused by an act or omission regardless of fault or intention. Strict liability applies whenever the legal system deems an activity inherently dangerous...

2) A person cannot waive the rights of a third party. This means that even though a person / pilot signs a "use at your own risk" agreement and "hold harmless" agreement, they cannot speak for their significant other, family, or passengers. The third party still retains all rights to recovery from loss through a lawsuit.

3) Even in states limiting the liability (statutory law) you can still get sued in most cases. Lawsuits sets the precedence for laws in many cases and have changed them in other cases. This is what is known as judicial law and landmark decisions.

4) If you get sued without insurance you are on the hook to defend yourself even if the case is frivolous.

5) There is no such thing as an umbrella policy for aviation risks and in most all cases any aviation risk is excluded under your homeowners / landowners policy.

This has not been the experience here in Montana. People are simply not being sued to see what sticks when somebody trips over their shoelaces on other peoples property. Even the Federal government avoided lawsuits on Federal property that is in Montana because of Montana's law. Here' s a relavant passage from our law. What is the difference between "owed no duty of care" and "strict liability"?


III. MONTANA’S RECREATIONAL USE STATUTE
Because Montana is uniquely endowed with scenic landscapes and areas
rich in recreational value,(9) Montana's recreational use statute(10)
was enacted to encourage landowners to make their lands freely
available to the public by limiting the landowners' tort liability.(11)
In Montana, a person who uses property for recreational purposes is
owed no duty of care by the landowner with respect to the condition of
the property, except that the landowner is liable to the person for any
injury to person or property for an act or omission that constitutes
willful or wanton misconduct.(12) This restriction on a landowner's
liability applies to both private and governmental agency
landowners;(13) is applicable regardless of whether the landowner has
or has not given his permission to use the property;(14) and applies to
land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways, and any improvements,
buildings, structures, machinery, and equipment on the property(15)


Here's a link to Montana law and some cases from the MPA website.

http://tinyurl.com/239gzq6

The insurance coverage for that is a general liability policy...the same type of policy that an FBO or other public airport would carry only without the coverage for commercial operations which brings higher premiums. You would only need the premesis coverage unless you are offering tiedowns, hangar space, or fuel in which case you would need additional coverages. It is relatively inexpensive, but depends on many variables such as the location, length, obstacles, surface, public / private, etc... Most of the time the coverage for a private strip hits the minimum premium limit for the underwriting company... based on $1 Million in liability coverage...

Bonanza Man wrote: What is the difference between "owed no duty of care" and "strict liability"?

Duty of care refers to negligence, but strict liability is not dependent on proof of negligence...only that a tort indeed happened and that the defendent was responsible.

Bonanza Man wrote:In Montana, a person who uses property for recreational purposes is
owed no duty of care by the landowner with respect to the condition of
the property, except that the landowner is liable to the person for any
injury to person or property for an act or omission that constitutes
willful or wanton misconduct.

This only offers some protection based on the condition of the property, but offers no protection for injury from other issues...kid walks into a prop, etc...

Even with the laws in place (and Montana looks pretty solid) it does not prevent lawsuits although it does help minimize them. I doubt the federal government avoided a lawsuit because they were afraid of the state law.

Although we deal with a good bit of legal issues in the insurance world, I am not a lawyer so it would be advisable to consult a good aviation attorney for more clarity on the issues pertinent to your specific state.

lowflybye wrote:I doubt the federal government avoided a lawsuit because they were afraid of the state law.

The Feds avoided a lawsuit because of the Montana law. Somebody tripped and fell in Glacier Nat'l Park or something and wanted to sue Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam said we are not liable because of Montana's law. And they were right