Opinion ID: 1060736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Immunity for Recreational Use

Text: We next address the applicability of the recreational use statute. The recreational use defense requires a two-pronged analysis to determine whether the State is entitled to immunity. The inquiries are as follows: (1) whether the activity alleged is a recreational activity as defined by the statute; and if so, (2) whether any of the statutory exceptions or limitations to the immunity defense are applicable. If Tenn.Code Ann. § 70-7-102 is applicable and no exceptions apply, the State is immune. If Tenn.Code Ann. § 70-7-102 is applicable but an exception is also applicable, the State may be subject to liability. The State's liability, however, is still governed by and subject to the claims commission statute. To answer the first inquiry, we must determine whether bicycling is a recreational activity as contemplated by the recreational use statute. The statute applies to: such recreational activities as hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water sports, white water rafting, canoeing, hiking, sightseeing, animal riding, bird watching, dog training, boating, caving, fruit and vegetable picking for the participant's own use, nature and historical studies and research, rock climbing, skeet and trap shooting, skiing, off-road vehicle riding, and cutting or removing wood for the participant's own use.... Tenn.Code Ann. § 70-7-102 (emphasis added). The statute employs the phrase such recreational activities as in a manner that implies that the list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. An all-inclusive list explicitly enumerating every single activity that is recreational in nature would be extremely cumbersome. Accordingly, activities similar to those explicitly enumerated in § 102 may also fall within the purview of the recreational use statute. Bicycling is by its very nature a recreational activity and is comparable to the activities enumerated in § 102. We, therefore, hold that Tenn.Code Ann. § 70-7-102 provides the State with an immunity defense when injury occurs during bicycling on a paved trail on state-owned land. Accordingly, the State may raise the recreational use statute as a defense to the plaintiffs' Tenn.Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C) claim. As previously discussed, the State's statutory defense under the recreational use statute is not absolute. Having found § 102 to apply, we must make the second inquiry: whether any of the statutory exceptions or limitations to the defense are applicable. If one of the exceptions under Tenn.Code Ann. § 70-7-104 is applicable, the recreational use statute is negated. An analysis of whether the plaintiff has established the presence of a Tenn.Code Ann. § 70-7-104 exception is premature at this time. The facts, if any, supporting the presence of an exception have not been developed in this Rule 12.02(6) motion. This case is, therefore, remanded to the claims commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Cost of this appeal shall be taxed against the State for which execution may issue if necessary. ANDERSON, C.J., DROWOTA, BIRCH, and BARKER, J.J., concur.