Opinion ID: 764970
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Open to the Public

Text: 48 Howard argues that the dock on which Howard was injured was closed to the nonpaying public and that the Government is therefore not immune from suit under the HRUS. 49 The HRUS provides immunity to landowners who allow any person to use their property for recreational purposes without charge. Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-4. The HRUS lists three exceptions to this grant of immunity: (1) where injury is caused by the landowner's willful or malicious action or inaction; (2) where the landowner has charged the person or persons for the use of the land; and (3) where the injury is suffered by a house guest while on the owner's land. Haw. Rev. Stat. 520-5. The HRUS does not contain a requirement that a landowner allow each and every individual of the general public access and use of the land; to the contrary, under the plain language of the statute, unless the landowner charges a fee or acts maliciously or willfully, the landowner is immunized for injury to any person using his or her land for recreational purposes unless that person is a house guest. See id. 50 Hickam Harbor and the dock on which Howard was injured is open to military personnel, their families and their guests. Even if it is closed to the general public, the fact that it is open to the military public without charge is sufficient to qualify for immunity under the HRUS. See Mansion v. United States, 945 F.2d 1115, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 1991) (rejecting plaintiff's contention that only land owners who allow anyone and everyone free access to their property may claim recreational immunity); Budde, 797 F. Supp. at 735 (rejecting argument that pool did not fall within the HRUS requirements because it was not open to the general public); Stout v. United States, 696 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Haw. 1987) (stating that the statute appears to apply even if the military base was closed to the general public). 51 The fact that Holder Dock was closed to everyone except the instructors and students of the sailing course on the day of Howard's injury does not strip the Government of its HRUS immunity. The Government limited access to the dock on that day to prevent injury to novice sailors and/or because of the rough weather conditions. The Government can exercise such control and discretion over who uses its land for recreational purposes without forfeiting the immunity that the HRUS provides. See Stout, 696 F. Supp. at 539 (recognizing that a landowner can control who uses his land for recreational purposes, and that such discretion should not result in the forfeiture of the immunity that [the HRUS] provides). 52