Title: Owens v. Grant
Citation: 569 So. 2d 707
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: September 28, 1990

569 So. 2d 707 (1990)
T.O. OWENS
v.
Donald GRANT, as administrator of the estate of Valerie Donnel Grant, deceased, et al.
89-247.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 28, 1990.
Forrest S. Latta of Barker &amp; Janecky, Mobile, for appellant.
John T. Crowder and Andrew T. Citrin of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder and Brown, Mobile, and Charles R. Godwin, Atmore, for appellees.
MADDOX, Justice.
The issue in this case is whether the owner of a man-made lake who permitted families to use the lake for recreational purposes upon the payment of a $50.00 fee was, as a matter of law, operating a "commercial enterprise for profit" within the meaning of Ala.Code 1975, §§ 35-15-1 through -5, and 35-15-20 through -28, (hereinafter referred to as the Alabama recreational use statute).
This is a wrongful death action. Valerie Donnel Grant, a minor, drowned in Big Foot Lake, a man-made lake near Atmore in Escambia County, Alabama. That lake was not originally designed for any recreational purpose, but was used initially by the appellant, T.O. Owens, as part of a gravel production business. Gravel was removed from the ground in the area in 1984 and was moved to an adjacent piece of property, and the resulting large gravel pit filled with water of sufficient quality for fishing, boating, and swimming.
In 1986, Owens opened his property to members of the public for recreational use, provided they purchased a written permit, which stated: "BIG FOOT LAKEIt is fully understood that by accepting this permit I do not hold the land owner responsible for any type of accident." A total of 42 permits were issued for $50 each per family.[1]
On July 19, 1986, Grant and three other teenage girls went to Big Foot Lake. The evidence tends to show that two of the girls waded out far enough on a shallow ledge to cause some loose gravel to give way, thereby causing them to slip into deeper water, from which they could not *708 swim or climb out. In an attempt to rescue the two girls, Grant jumped in to rescue them, but she drowned, along with the two girls.
Valerie's father, Donald Grant, as administrator of the estate, sued Owens, alleging negligence and wantonness in the maintenance of the lake.
At trial, Owens moved for a directed verdict pursuant to § 35-15-1 et seq.; those sections limit the liability of private owners who make their premises available to the public for recreational use, and in pertinent part provide:
"§ 35-15-20. Legislative intent.
"§ 35-15-21. Definitions.
"§ 35-15-22. Inspection and warning not required.
"§ 35-15-23. Limitations on legal liability of owner.
"§ 35-15-24. Otherwise existing liability not limited.
The trial court denied the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and refused to instruct the jury regarding this statute.
The trial transcript shows that the court engaged in a colloquy with counsel for plaintiff and defendant concerning the interpretation of the statute, but that colloquy did not adequately analyze the issue of what was meant by the legislature when it used the words "commercial enterprise for profit" in § 35-15-3.
The court instructed the jury on negligence and wantonness as set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 (1986), *710 and the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $125,000 against Owens.
It is apparent from the record that the court was of the opinion that no jury question was presented on the applicability of the statute.
Owens argues, among other things, that the trial court erred, at least in refusing to instruct the jury concerning the fact questions regarding whether the activity at Big Foot Lake was "profit motivated." We agree with Owens's argument that the court should have submitted to the jury the fact questions regarding whether granting to the public the right to enter his property for recreational purposes for a fee constituted the operation of a "commercial enterprise for profit" within the meaning of the statute.
Although Alabama's recreational use statute has been in effect since 1975, there have been few cases interpreting it. The key to this case lies in the interpretation of the term "profit-motivated," which is contained in § 35-15-21(5). No case law in Alabama has construed this particular portion of the statute; therefore, we must determine what the legislature intended by using this language. To do so, we must look to the history and public policy behind the statute.
The Alabama statute, passed in 1975, and later amended in 1981, in large part, parallels a model act promulgated over 25 years ago by the Council of State Governments and entitled "Public recreation on private lands: limitations on liability."
The relevant portions of the model act are as follows:
24 Suggested State Legislation 150 (Council of State Governments, 1965) (emphasis added).
Currently, 43 states have adopted the model act to some extent.
Generally, the purpose of recreational use legislation, as expressed in the preambles of many of the statutes, is to encourage owners of private lands to make their land available to the public for recreational purposes. The concept is that such legislation provides a type of "quid pro quo" whereby a landowner receives immunity from lawsuits in exchange for opening his land to the public. The preamble in Alabama's recreational statutes contains the purpose behind the adoption of these statutes. It reads:
Section 35-15-20 (Supp.1982).
While a majority of the other states have adopted the model statute verbatim and therefore do not grant immunity from suit if the landowner opens his land for a "charge" (see model statute, § 4), Alabama and Louisiana did not adopt the model act. Alabama and Louisiana deny recovery only if the activity is "profit motivated." Because of the similarity between the Alabama and Louisiana statutes, and in view of the fact that Louisiana has addressed the same question we have before us, we look to the law of Louisiana for guidance.
*711 The Louisiana statute reads, in relevant part, as follows:
La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 9:2795 (West 1975) (emphasis added).
The Louisiana Court of Appeals resolved the ambiguities in the phrase "commercial recreational developments" and held that within the intendment of the statute, a "commercial recreational development" is one that is "run for profit." Thomas v. Jeane, 411 So. 2d 744 (La.App.1982); Pratt v. State, 408 So. 2d 336 (La.App.1982). In both of those cases the plaintiff paid a fee to enter the recreational area. Acknowledging this, the court specifically held that charging fees would not, in and of itself, render an operation commercial: "[P]rofit as a primary objective of the venture would be essential to render it commercial." 411 So. 2d  at 747; 408 So. 2d  at 342.
Other states define "charge" or related terms from a negative perspective. For example, Wisconsin's statute provides:
Wis.Stat. § 29.68 (1979).
Wisconsin is the only state, insofar as our research shows, that specifies a certain dollar amount to meet the consideration requirement.
While the Alabama statute generally parallels the model act, it clearly embraces a different approach when a fee is charged, as in this case. It does not specifically require a gratuitous entry, as the model statute does; in fact, the legislature specified that charging a "maintenance fee" would not exclude a landowner from the protection of the statute. § 35-15-21(5). Federal courts in Alabama that have interpreted Alabama's statute have held that the statutory immunity applied, regardless of whether an admission fee was charged or not. George v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1524 (M.D.Ala.1990); Clark v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 606 F. Supp. 130 (N.D.Ala.1985); and Russell v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 564 F. Supp. 1043 (N.D. Ala.1983).
Alabama's statute does not follow the Louisiana statute in specifying that the charging of fees does not render the facility a commercial venture, see La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2795 (1975), and our legislature did not specify a dollar amount that would necessarily constitute a commercial use, as the Wisconsin legislature did, but rather our legislature used the term "profit-motivated." What did the legislature intend by adopting the term "profit-motivated"?
In answering this question, we are aided by a decision of this Court written by Chief Justice Brickell interpreting the phrase "carrying on a business for profit," which was contained in a legislative enactment. In Weil v. State, 52 Ala. 19, 21 (1875), this Court stated:
The application of the recreational use statute cannot be decided simplistically on the basis of whether the use of the property was totally gratuitous. In view of the history of the statute and its prior interpretation, we cannot accept the appellee's argument that, as a matter of law, the statute does not apply. If, after a trial, the factfinder determines that the appellant intended to derive a profit from the recreational use of the lake, then the recreational use statute would not protect him. If, however, the factfinder determines that he did not intend to derive a profit, then the immunity provisions of the statute would apply.
We hold, therefore, that it is a jury question whether the appellant intended to derive a profit from the operation of Big Foot Lake. We cannot say that, as a matter of law, that operation is a commercial recreational use of his property.
Under the facts of this particular case, we believe that there is a material question of fact as to whether the appellant intended to derive a profit from the operation of Big Foot Lake. Even though the man-made lake had a name, and was connected with the gravel pit operation, and the recreational users used the same entrance to the lake as did those carrying on business related to the gravel pit operations, we cannot determine, as a matter of law, that the appellant intended to make a profit on the recreational operation.
We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the applicable statute. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JONES, ALMON, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
[1]  The deceased minor had permission to be on the premises because her grandmother had an agreement with Owens that granted Owens an easement across her property for access to his property. Owens paid the grandmother $300 per year for use of the easement and gave the grandmother and her "family" unlimited use of his lake property, in return for use of the easement.