Opinion ID: 726586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: dismissal based on washington state law

Text: 51 Because it relied on the Feres doctrine to dismiss Dreier's complaint, the district court did not consider the United States' arguments that the complaint is barred by Washington state law. We are free, however, to affirm on any ground fairly presented by the record. Fosson v. Palace (Waterland), Ltd., 78 F.3d 1448, 1452 (9th Cir.1996). We review questions of state law de novo. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Showa Shipping Co., 47 F.3d 316, 322 (9th Cir.1995). 52
53 The government argues that it is immunized from liability for Ronald's death by Revised Washington Code § 4.24.210, which reads, in relevant part: 54 (1) ... [A]ny public or private landowners or others in lawful possession and control of any lands whether designated resource, rural, or urban, or water areas or channels and lands adjacent to such areas or channels, who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to, ... picnicking, swimming, hiking, ... [and] boating, ... without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users. 55