Opinion ID: 1714956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: The Act insulates landowners from negligence liability when they allow members of the public to enter and use their land for recreational purposes. See, §§ 37-1001 to 37-1008; Holden v. Schwer, 242 Neb. 389, 495 N.W.2d 269 (1993); Thies v. City of Omaha, 225 Neb. 817, 408 N.W.2d 306 (1987); Bailey v. City of North Platte, 218 Neb. 810, 359 N.W.2d 766 (1984). The Act defines recreational purposes and provides that the term recreational purposes shall include, but not be limited to, any one or any combination of the following: Hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water-skiing, winter sports, and visiting, viewing, or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, or otherwise using land for purposes of the user[.] § 37-1008(3). The purpose of the Act is to encourage owners of land to make available to the public land and water areas for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon.... § 37-1001. Under the Act, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes. § 37-1002. Specifically, the Act states: [A]n owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby (1) extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose, (2) confer upon such persons the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of such persons. § 37-1003. A landowner protected by the Act is liable only for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity, or when the owner charges the person for entry on the land. § 37-1005. The Browns argue that Randi's invitation to Sunshine to go home with Randi and play did not constitute an invitation to the public under § 37-1001 and that the Legislature did not intend the Act to apply to residential settings. The Act does not define the term public; therefore, the determination of this issue is a matter of statutory interpretation. When interpreting a statute, a court must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Loup City Pub. Sch. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., supra ; Southeast Rur. Vol. Fire Dept. v. Neb. Dept. of Rev., 251 Neb. 852, 560 N.W.2d 436 (1997). The court's duty is to discover, if possible, legislative intent from the statute itself. Arizona Motor Speedway v. Hoppe, 244 Neb. 316, 506 N.W.2d 699 (1993); Sarpy County v. City of Springfield, 241 Neb. 978, 492 N.W.2d 566 (1992); Georgetowne Ltd. Part. v. Geotechnical Servs., 230 Neb. 22, 430 N.W.2d 34 (1988). When construing a statute, a court looks to the objects sought to be accomplished, the evils and mischief sought to be remedied, or the purposes to be served, and places upon the statute a reasonable or liberal construction which will best effect its purpose rather than one which will defeat it. Arizona Motor Speedway v. Hoppe, supra ; In re Interest of McManaman, 222 Neb. 263, 383 N.W.2d 45 (1986). See Sarpy County v. City of Springfield, supra . Because the Act is in derogation of common law, the statutes are strictly construed. See, Mason v. Schumacher, 231 Neb. 929, 439 N.W.2d 61 (1989); NC+ and Hybrids v. Growers Seed Assn., 219 Neb. 296, 363 N.W.2d 362 (1985). The term public connotes an unexclusive group of persons. 73 C.J.S. Public at 330 (1983). The word public has also been defined as [t]he whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality[;] ... does not mean all the people, nor most of the people, ... but so many of them as contradistinguishes them from a few[;] ... the people of the neighborhood[;] ... the inhabitants of a community. Black's Law Dictionary 1227 (6th ed.1990). The record in this case is devoid of evidence that the Wilsons opened their land to the public. See, e.g., Holden v. Schwer, 242 Neb. 389, 495 N.W.2d 269 (1993) (defendant often gave others permission to use his land without charge for hunting, fishing, and other purposes); Gallagher v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 225 Neb. 354, 405 N.W.2d 571 (1987) (defendant gave permission to neighborhood association to use empty lots for recreational purposes, primarily baseball and softball). We determine that Sunshine is not a member of the public as contemplated by the Act. When interpreting the word public in the Act, we must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature in enacting the Act; therefore, we are guided by the stated purpose of the Act, which is to encourage owners of land to make available to the public land and water areas for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon and toward persons who may be injured or otherwise damaged by the acts or omissions of persons entering thereon. § 37-1001. Several courts, including this court, have limited the scope of the Act's immunity when considering the purpose of the Act. See, e.g., Cassio v. Creighton University, 233 Neb. 160, 446 N.W.2d 704 (1989) (holding Act did not apply to independent indoor recreational facilities, including indoor swimming pools); LePoidevin v. Wilson, 111 Wis.2d 116, 330 N.W.2d 555 (1983) (finding recreational use act did not apply where defendant did not open his land to public; rather, defendant opened his land to social guest who was invited onto land); Wymer v. Holmes, 429 Mich. 66, 412 N.W.2d 213 (1987) (holdingrecreational use act applied only to large tracts of undeveloped land suitable for outdoor recreational uses); Herring v. Hauck, 118 Ga.App. 623, 165 S.E.2d 198 (1968) (holding recreational use act inapplicable to 13-year-old boy injured in neighbor's swimming pool); Snyder v. Olmstead, 261 Ill.App.3d 986, 199 Ill.Dec. 703, 634 N.E.2d 756 (1994), appeal denied 157 Ill.2d 523, 205 Ill.Dec. 187, 642 N.E.2d 1304 (finding recreational use act did not apply where owner did not open his land to public but simply invited private persons to picnic); Boileau v. De Cecco, 125 N.J.Super. 263, 310 A.2d 497 (1973), aff'd 65 N.J. 234, 323 A.2d 449 (1974) (holding recreational use act did not apply to homeowners in suburbia). We conclude that the Legislature, when enacting the Act, did not intend that a child invited to her friend's home constitutes a member of the public in order that the landowner be considered as having opened his or her land to the public for purposes of coming under the Act's protection. Sunshine was a friend invited by the landowners' daughter to their home. The Act's purpose, to encourage a landowner to open his land to the public for recreation, is not advanced by applying the Act to this situation; rather, such application would distort the Act's purpose by extending its immunity beyond the scope intended by the Legislature. Accordingly, we hold that the Act does not apply to a residential setting not open to the public for recreational purposes, where the landowners' daughter invites a private friend home to play. To hold otherwise would eviscerate the common law by immunizing all homeowners from negligence claims of their guests who engaged in recreational activities and would lead to absurd results.