Title: Friedman v. Grand Cent. Sanitation

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

524 Pa. 270 (1990) 571 A.2d 373 Robert FRIEDMAN, Appellant, v. GRAND CENTRAL SANITATION, INC., Appellee. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted January 25, 1990. Decided March 19, 1990. *271 Philip D. Lauer, Easton, for appellant. Robert E. Simpson, Jr., Easton, for appellee. Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ. FLAHERTY, Justice. This case involves the interpretation of the Pennsylvania Recreation Use of Land and Water Act, 68 P.S. §§ 477-1 to 477-8, as pertains to its purpose and applicability. We must determine whether the act provides immunity for all landowners whose land is used for recreational purposes, as it says, or whether its protection is limited to landowners who invite the public to use their land for recreation. We hold that the statute affords protection to owners whose land is used for recreational purposes free of charge, even though the landowner has not donated the land to the public for such purposes. The cause of action arose as follows. In 1984, Robert Friedman, appellant, was hunting on land adjacent to that of Grand Central Sanitation, Inc. Appellant inadvertently wandered onto the land of Grand Central, which was used as a sanitary landfill, though the land was posted with "no trespassing" signs. Appellant allegedly was overcome with fumes from waste material and fell into a large open trench, injuring himself. *272 When he sued to recover for his injuries, Grand Central defended on several grounds. First, it claimed that in addition to posting its property, it deployed personnel to patrol the property and pursued a policy of prosecuting trespassers. Second, it claimed that appellant was injured in a trench which was so obvious and clearly visible that no one had ever fallen in it before so that appellant was contributorily negligent. Finally, it raised the immunity of the Recreation Use of Land and Water Act, claiming that appellant had entered on its land without charge for recreational purposes, implicating the act, and that Grand Central was therefore not liable for appellant's injuries, having no duty to keep the premises safe or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on its premises. The trial court entered summary judgment for Grand Central after the parties stipulated that a wilful or malicious failure to warn was not at issue, and that Grand Central did not charge a fee to those entering on its property. The court based its decision on 68 P.S. § 477-3, as interpreted in Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 363 Pa.Super. 308, 526 A.2d 359 (1987). The statute states: In Gallo, supra, the Superior Court rejected the claim that "a landowner must at least indirectly invite the public to recreate on the landowner's otherwise private property," holding instead: "By its terms, Section 3 grants immunity to the `owner of land' without reference to whether the owner `invites or permits' others onto his or her property." Gallo, 363 Pa.Super. at 316, 526 A.2d at 363. To aid in its interpretation, the statute is brief enough to quote in its entirety. *275 The tension, obviously, arises between the terms of sections one and three. If the purpose of the act, stated in section one, is to encourage owners to make their land available to the public for recreation, why should section three immunize owners whose land is used for recreational purposes without their invitation or permission? Appellant argues that any interpretation of section three which grants immunity to appellee is inconsistent with the purpose of the act. He claims that there would be no incentive for a landowner to permit public recreation on his land if a landowner such as appellee, who prohibits entry on his land, is nevertheless granted immunity under the statute. The answer to this argument is given by the Superior Court: Gallo, 363 Pa. at 316, 526 A.2d at 363 (citations omitted). It is understandable that the General Assembly saw fit, in section three, to grant immunity to owners of recreational land even if they did not invite the general public to use their land. The general grant of immunity contained in section three was a replacement for the Act of September 27, 1961, P.L. 1696, which was repealed by the Recreation Use of Land and Water Act, 68 P.S. § 477-8. The previous act had provided: "No landowner of agricultural lands or woodlands shall be liable for the payment of damages for any personal injury suffered by any person while hunting or fishing upon the landowner's property, except for any deliberate and wilful personal injury inflicted upon such person by such landowner." The General Assembly enacting the Recreation Use Act, which repealed the broad immunity then existing under P.L. 1696, apparently felt it necessary to replace it with the immunity granted in section three of the Recreation Use Act, even though such immunity was not in direct furtherance of the purpose stated in section one. There is no principle of statutory construction which would permit us to ignore the plain language of section three. As the Superior Court noted in Gallo, supra, if section three is interpreted to apply only to landowners who invite the public to recreate upon their land, the section is a nullity mere surplusage to the remainder of the statute. Several principles of statutory construction, codified in Title 1 of Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, prohibit us from rewriting "the pristine terms of the Recreation Act," as this Court characterized the language in Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Resources v. Auresto, 511 Pa. 73, 77, 511 A.2d 815, 817 (1986). "Words and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage." 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a). "When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under *277 the pretext of pursuing its spirit." 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b) (emphasis added). "Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions." 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). Moreover, to interpret section three of the Recreation Use Act as requiring that a landowner invite the public to enter upon his land, in the guise of effectuating the purpose of "encourag[ing] owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes," is to enter a thicket entangled with speculation as to the motives of the landowner in permitting the public to use his land. It would suggest that land which had been open for recreational purposes prior to 1966, when the Recreation Use Act was adopted, would fall outside the terms of the act because immunity could not encourage the owner to make his land available to the public for recreation inasmuch as he had already done so. See, e.g., Livingston by Livingston v. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., 609 F. Supp. 643 (E.D.Pa.1985); Hahn v. United States, 493 F. Supp. 57 (M.D.Pa.1980). These unnecessary difficulties in applying the statute would exist only if we were to interpret section three as if it required the landowner to invite the public upon his land, just as section four does, thereby equating section three with section four in violation of 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a), supra. We find no authority in any sister state which has squarely addressed the precise question at hand. Several federal courts, however, have applied the statute as written and found no impediment to doing so, even though the immunity in section three seems inconsistent with the stated purpose of the act. A good example is the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in Barrett v. Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co., 631 F. Supp. 731 (M.D.Pa.1985), applying the Pennsylvania Recreation Use of Land and Water Act. That court stated: Id., 631 F. Supp. at 734. Accord Livingston by Livingston v. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., supra; Hahn v. United States, supra. Accordingly, we hold that the pristine terms of section three of the Recreation Use Act immunize a landowner whose land is used for recreational purposes by the public without charge, whether or not he has invited or permitted the public to enter his land. Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court, 381 Pa.Super. 662, 548 A.2d 644, must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.