QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.
The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landowner was not entitled, as a matter of law, to immunity from a personal injury suit under the “recreational use immunity” provision of the General Obligations Law. Therefore the landowner’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when the all terrain vehicle (ATV) he was driving struck a pothole on defendant’s dirt road. Pursuant to the General Obligations Law, if the road were deemed suitable for recreational use the landowner would be immune from suit. The majority concluded the road was used for two-way traffic to access homes. Therefore a question of fact had been raised about whether the road was suitable for recreational use within the meaning of the statute:
The road where the accident occurred is the sole means of access to Walker Lake Ontario Road for three homes. Defendant maintains the road by scraping and re-leveling it almost every year. It is wide enough to accommodate one car traveling in each direction. While located in a rural area, the two-lane private road is used for residential purposes, including at times for school bus access. Thus, the physical characteristics of the road are residential, as opposed to recreational in nature … . * * *
… [T]he portion of property where plaintiff fell is not the type of property that the Legislature intended to cover under General Obligations Law § 9-103… . … [C]ourts should ask whether the property “is the sort which the Legislature would have envisioned as being opened up to the public for recreational activities as a result of the inducement offered in the statute. In other words, is it a type of property which is not only physically conducive to the particular activity or sport but is also a type which would be appropriate for public use in pursuing the activity as recreation?” … . Application of the statutory immunity to the road at issue would lead to its application to potentially any road in a rural area, which is inconsistent with the idea that this statute is in derogation of the common law and should therefore be narrowly construed … .
FROM THE DISSENT:
We respectfully dissent inasmuch as we conclude that defendant, the property owner, is entitled to immunity from liability under the recreational use statute (see General Obligations Law § 9-103). In particular, we disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the property at issue is not suitable for the recreational activity in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of his accident, i.e., operation of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). We would therefore affirm the order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Cummings v Manville, 2017 NY Slip Op 05530, 4th Dept 7-7-17
NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, RECREATIONAL USE OF PROPERTY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/IMMUNITY (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, RECREATIONAL USE OF PROPERTY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (NEGLIGENCE, RECREATIONAL IMMUNITY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)/RECREATIONAL USE OF PROPERTY (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, RECREATIONAL USE OF PROPERTY, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ROAD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING HIS ATV WHEN HE WAS INJURED WAS SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LANDOWNER WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE RECREATIONAL USE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT)