Landowner will close access to two Colorado 14ers after lawmakers rejected legislation limiting liability

[marksjeep]

Seems that legislation like this could have greased the skids for the corner crossing bill that was laid over recently.

https://coloradosun.com/2023/03/03/landowner-closing-14ers-mount-lincoln-democrat/

 

[davinski]

That's a bummer. Sounds like "willful or malicious" really means "who has the more expensive attorney?" and leaving it in means more juicy court cases to be tried and fees to be made. Thanks, Air Force...

 

[TOGIE]

i'm no attorney but i think with bross and lindsey all they have to do is put up a no trespassing sign and then they're kinda covered from liability, right? someone get's injured, well they were trespassing. otherwise i doubt they'll really enforce it.

bross was illegal when i waltzed to the top of it like 10 years ago.

 

[LuketheDog]

Thanks, Air Force...

How about "Thanks greedy mountain biker and his greedy lawyer?" Did the Air Force really need to hold his hand and put up signs to tell him how you can get hurt by riding into a hole? I'd have a different mindset if they had dug the hole and left it, but a washout from rainfall is totally different...

 

[davinski]

Greedy attorney and certainly a tragic accident, yes. I'm a safety third guy. I thought the point of mountain biking was to cover rougher terrain in the first place. I just think in that case, the USAF should have had more intestinal fortitude and fought it harder, even if that next step was the supreme court. This case lowered the bar on "willful and malicious" to a point where now landowners will obviously close up more access without a change in state law.

An interesting case I hadn't read until today. Kind of makes the trend in the OP obvious now. Hopefully our esteemed state legislature comes around in the future. I've waived around the CO rec access statute to try and get access here and there. That USAFA case does not help.

https://www.westword.com/news/horri...rash-nets-73m-verdict-a-decade-later-11232411

 

[rogerthat]

This case is ridiculous. Personal accountability is on its way out of our society. What an f’n joke. No wonder no body wants to provide access to the public with bs rulings such as this

 

[noharleyyet]

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Mark Baisley, a Republican from Woodland Park, was supported by 25 different organizations, including outdoor recreation groups, water districts, conservation advocates and municipalities.
Another dozen landowners, groups and lawyers testified in support of the bill.

Kari Jones Dulin, an attorney who testified against the legislation for the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, said the state recreational use statute does not need amending.
Two other trial attorneys testified against the bill, including the lawyer who represented the cyclist, James Nelson, injured on the Air Force Academy campus.
The trial attorneys were the only people who spoke against the bill

And the winner by lobbyist clout is:

 

[fishing4sanity]

Sad deal when the landowner is willing to allow public access, but can't risk it due to the threat of financial ruin.

Question, do those 'wavier of liabilities' even offer any protection in today's world? Should be a simple solution, but I've heard they're not worth the paper they're printed on.

 

[nrpate05]

Sad deal when the landowner is willing to allow public access, but can't risk it due to the threat of financial ruin.

Question, do those 'wavier of liabilities' even offer any protection in today's world? Should be a simple solution, but I've heard they're not worth the paper they're printed on.

I've heard that they don't really carry any weight, but I'm not a lawyer. Bummer for sure. I hiked it probably 7-8 years ago and I think it was illegal then.

 

[rideold]

Cripes......

Watch out, someone said too much screen time is hazardous to your heath and no one posted it on every single web page I look at....Glad I don't have to be responsible in any way for my actions at any time in any situation!

 

[Green Hunter]

That's disappointing! I would be fine to sign a waiver in order to get access and mark off another 14er!

 

[rogerthat]

This puts credence behind anyone that closes access due to liability. Very disappointing

 

[bayoublaster7527]

This is bad for public lands access. Died on a straight party line vote. D’s killed it 3-2. I guess they aren’t the public land heroes when it affects their ambulance chasing buddies. Disappointing.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Called all the Senators that killed it in committee. Only one answered and her aide hung up on me after I noted the party line vote and siding with personal injury lawyers over Colorado outdoor enthusiasts. Keep hammerin.

Names/Phone Numbers:
Julie Gonzalez 303-866-4862
Robert Rodriguez 303-866-4852, 720-459-0708 (cell)
Dylan Roberts 303-866-4871

 

[MtnElk]

Having followed this for quite some time and this specific landowner, this is a fascinating case to me. On one hand, I understand why 3 people were wary to completely wipe out landowner responsibility when there is a "known" issue. that's essentially complete immunity from prosecution or consequence for being ignorant and endangering people. But on the other hand this causes issues with private access to public lands.

The waiver issue is a no go. How many people would simply forget to do it, ignore it or say they didn't fill it out when they got hurt. I mean, does everyone here fill out the USFS form at trailheads when they enter? I would guess the numbers are like 3 of 5 that do it.

But to @TOGIE's point, one has to wonder if an explicitly posted sign or signs - that could not be missed, even at 330 am - could be installed that essentially state that by proceeding forward and using said private land to access public land, you are waiving your right to suing the landowner for any incidents that occur while using said access point. Would that hold up? Anyone who has ever hiked in by headlamp to one of these peaks knows that any sign out there is reflective AF and often causes you to stop in your tracks if you're not aware it's there.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

In reading this I didn’t understand it to completely wipe out landowner responsibility and grant total immunity. If that were the case I find it hard to believe that so many outdoor recreation and advocacy organizations, around 25, would testify in support of the legislation. I honestly don’t think the posting of signs would hold up in a liability case, but I’m not an attorney and I don’t play one on tv. Furthermore personal responsibility is a highly underrated characteristic these days.

 

[MtnElk]

In reading this I didn’t understand it to completely wipe out landowner responsibility and grant total immunity. If that were the case I find it hard to believe that so many outdoor recreation and advocacy organizations, around 25, would testify in support of the legislation. I honestly don’t think the posting of signs would hold up in a liability case, but I’m not an attorney and I don’t play one on tv. Furthermore personal responsibility is a highly underrated characteristic these days.

and you very well could be right that it didn't provide immunity, but that is the way I read this:

"That’s a critical point in the state’s recreational use statute, which excludes landowner immunity from lawsuits if an injured party can prove the landowner displayed a “willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition.”

The legislation would have removed that exception. "

I read that above as the exception to land owner immunity is when they know what's up and they were trying to remove that exception. But I could very well be wrong.

Maybe @VikingsGuy can set the record straight for us simpletons lol

 

[MtnElk]

In reading this I didn’t understand it to completely wipe out landowner responsibility and grant total immunity. If that were the case I find it hard to believe that so many outdoor recreation and advocacy organizations, around 25, would testify in support of the legislation. I honestly don’t think the posting of signs would hold up in a liability case, but I’m not an attorney and I don’t play one on tv. Furthermore personal responsibility is a highly underrated characteristic these days.

100% agree

 

[bayoublaster7527]

and you very well could be right that it didn't provide immunity, but that is the way I read this:

"That’s a critical point in the state’s recreational use statute, which excludes landowner immunity from lawsuits if an injured party can prove the landowner displayed a “willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition.”

The legislation would have removed that exception. "

I read that above as the exception to land owner immunity is when they know what's up and they were trying to remove that exception. But I could very well be wrong.

Maybe @VikingsGuy can set the record straight for us simpletons lol

According to leg.co website, it doesn’t remove the exception, it changes it. Posted below.

• The CRUS allows an owner to be found liable for "willful or malicious" failure to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity likely to cause "harm". Section 4 limits this exception to apply only to malicious failures and amends the exception to apply to a known dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity likely to cause "harm or death".

 

[PrairieHunter]

Ahh greenies. Upset that they don't get yet another selfie on a fourteener for their social media.

Colorado used to be such a nice place, now it's just one big square tourist trap where the crowds of people all doing the exact same thing have pretty much ruined it.


On the bright side there will be a couple of fourteeners with less poop moving forward.

There’s a crappy situation in Colorado’s backcountry: too many pooping hikers

Outdoor recreation groups hope handing out poop-disposal kits will cut down on the problem piling up on Colorado’s public lands

coloradosun.com