Additionally, there is no dispute that following the construction of the stairway by the property owners, the City alone assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the stairway and provided additional services to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the adjoining public access ways. The evidence thus substantiates the City's claim that it was in control of the stairway at the time of Flippen's recreational use of it. In response, Flippen contends that Code 29.1-509 is inapplicable to municipal corporations. Rather, he asserts that the legislature intended the statute to extend immunity only to private landowners, having provided for recreational use immunity for municipalities elsewhere. See Code 15.1-291.
Municipal corporations have a dual identity, existing both as a body politic and a body corporate.
The clear legislative intent of Code 29.1-509 is to encourage the opening of private land to public recreational use. Flippen contends that the City's maintenance of this stairway is comparable to its maintenance of sidewalks, suggesting that the City's actions are not motivated by the statute. This contention is without merit. Moreover, the intended use of the stairway in question is clearly to provide access to the recreational beach. The City's actions in providing and maintaining public access over private land for recreational purposes is entirely consistent with the purpose of Code 29.