Opinion ID: 2274434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Willful or Malicious Failure to Guard or Warn

Text: The statutory terminology willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity has not previously been addressed by this Court. However, the plain and ordinary meaning of this statute's language, as well as the persuasive case law from our sister states interpreting their own recreational use statutes, work in tandem to convince us that the law imposes a duty upon the city in this case, and the city is precluded from invoking the RUS as a shield against liability for Simcha's injuries. The protections afforded by the RUS are not available when there has been a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. Section 32-6-5(a)(1). Black's Law Dictionary defines willful as [v]oluntary and intentional, Black's Law Dictionary 1737 (9th ed. 2009) and malicious as [s]ubstantially certain to cause injury. [15] Id. at 1043. The term guard means [t]o protect from harm or danger, esp[ecially] by careful watching;    [t]o take precautions[.] American Heritage Dictionary 580 (2nd ed. 1985). A warning is defined as [t]he pointing out of a danger, esp[ecially] to one who would not otherwise be aware of it. Black's Law Dictionary 1722 (9th ed. 2009). In this case, a fact-finder reasonably could find that after learning about the Cliff Walk's instability, particularly along the area of Ochre Point, the city voluntarily and intentionally failed to guard against the dangerous condition, knowing that there existed a strong likelihood that a visitor to the Cliff Walk would suffer serious injury or death. The statutes and case law from our sister states are consistent with our conclusion. Georgia's Recreational Property Act's language mirrors ours in this respect. See Ga.Code Ann. § 51-3-25(1) (West 2009) (limiting liability unless evidence of willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity). The Court of Appeals of Georgia in Quick v. Stone Mountain Memorial Association, 204 Ga.App. 598, 420 S.E.2d 36 (1992), allowed the landowner to limit its liability even when it did nothing to prevent injuries sustained by the plaintiff who tripped and fell over rocks in a public park. Id. at 38. The court indicated that: [a] wilful [ sic ] failure to guard or warn would require actual knowledge    that a condition exists involving an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm; that the condition is not apparent to those using the property; and that having this knowledge, the owner chooses not to guard or warn, in disregard of the possible consequences. Id. (quoting Georgia Marble Co. v. Warren, 183 Ga.App. 866, 360 S.E.2d 286 (1987)). The court concluded that the unpaved area at issue in Quick, although covered in wood chips and hidden rocks, did not constitute a condition involving an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. Quick, 420 S.E.2d at 38. Importantly, the court noted that the park officials were unaware of any other accidents that had occurred in this area.  Id. (emphasis added). Similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, applying the Illinois Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act, declined to hold the landowner responsible for injuries that occurred when the plaintiffs drove their all-terrain vehicles into a creek bed. Cacia v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 290 F.3d 914, 915, 917 (7th Cir.2002). The court noted that, if the defendant has been informed of a dangerous condition or was aware of the fact that others had been injured because of the condition, and failed to respond to or otherwise remedy the dangerous condition[,] liability would attach. Id. at 920. With that in mind, the court noted that the plaintiffs point to not an iota of evidence that suggests that [the landowner] had any knowledge that the barricade    was damaged (emphasis in original) and that the evidence is undisputed that [the landowner] had no knowledge of any other complaints or accidents at the site   . Id. (emphasis added). Quite appropriately, Newport jealously guards and promotes the Cliff Walk as a cornerstone of its tourism industryan attraction that annually lures legions of visitors to the Atlantic coast. Newport has received more than $3.5 million in federal, state, and municipal funding for the Cliff Walk, and, to qualify for this money, the city declared its sovereignty over it. The city assumed control of the Cliff Walk, fully aware of the threatened stability of the walkway. However, at the same time, the city boldly argues that it has no duty to maintain the Cliff Walk or warn visitors about its latent dangers, and the city contends that it is immune from suit unless a city employee, by happenstance, is present on the Cliff Walk and fails to warn a visitor whom he sees approaching the unstable cliff edge. We reject these contentions. We recognize that for purposes of tort liability under the RUS, a visitor to the Cliff Walk is accorded the status of a trespasser to whom no duty of care is owed, save to refrain from the conduct set forth in § 32-6-5(a)(1). But we are equally cognizant that if we were to apply the language of § 32-6-5(a)(1) as argued by the city, the throngs of visitors, who, although accorded the status of trespassers, are nonetheless innocent tourists, will continue to face grave danger based on an interpretation of the RUS that is not only absurd, but unjust. We are not persuaded that the Legislature intended the RUS to serve as an invitation to ignore known hazards while profiting from this major tourist attraction where such danger is present. We simply decline to attribute such intent to the Legislature. This Court is not the finder of fact. It is our function to rule on the question of law presented in this case. Having declared that the immunity provided by the RUS is not available to defendant City of Newport, in the context of the Cliff Walk, the question of whether the city is liable in tort is a task that is committed to the fact-finder. [16]