Opinion ID: 831187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: recreational activities

Text: The Legislature has also determined that there is a place in society for recreational activities that occasionally produce injuries by enacting standards of care that preclude claims for injuries to participants, regardless of the injured person's age, resulting from the inherent risks of such activities. As this Court indicated in Neal v. Wilkes, 470 Mich. 661, 685 N.W.2d 648 (2004), the Legislature enacted Michigan's recreational land use statute, MCL 324.73301, to provide immunity for landowners from personal-injury lawsuits by persons using their property recreationally, regardless of age, i.e., even when minors are injured. [54] As we discussed in Anderson v. Pine Knob Ski Resort, Inc., 469 Mich. 20, 664 N.W.2d 756 (2003), the Legislature enacted Michigan's Ski Area Safety Act, MCL 408.321 et seq., to provide immunity for ski-area operators from personal-injury suits by injured skiers, regardless of the age of the skier. [55] And as was further mentioned in Dale v. Beta-C, Inc., 227 Mich.App. 57, 574 N.W.2d 697 (1997), the Legislature enacted Michigan's Roller Skating Safety Act, MCL 445.1721 et seq., to provide some immunity for roller-skating rink operators from personal-injury suits by injured skaters, again regardless of the skater's age. [56] See also the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), MCL 691.1661 et seq., which proscribes general claims for ordinary negligence, regardless of the injured person's age. In particular, the EALA proscribes liability for injuries resulting from the inherent risks of equine activity. [57] We should give significant weight to the Legislature's expression of the public policy that such activities are worthy of protection, even in light of their risks, and that providers of such activities are entitled to receive some measure of protection from lawsuits in the absence of gross negligence, even when the participants are minors. Similarly, our state's caselaw evidences that Michigan public policy recognizes that there are benefits to recreational activity. In Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 246 Mich.App. 645, 657-658, 635 N.W.2d 219 (2001), in which a minor was injured by a flying bat fragment, the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict and dismissed the injured minor's claim after adopting the limited duty doctrine as a matter of Michigan law. [58] See also Moning, 400 Mich. at 458, 254 N.W.2d 759, in which this Court said: [B]aseball equipment and bicycles ... are viewed by society essentially as are automobiles in that although children are injured and killed riding bicycles and playing baseball, the utility of such activity is regarded by society and all reasonable persons as outweighing the risk of harm created by their manufacture for and marketing to children. Indeed, in Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkley, 461 Mich. at 73, 92 n. 13, 597 N.W.2d 517 (1999), this Court described recreational activities as valuable and important social activities. We should take cognizance of and give weight to these judicial decisions when assessing whether there is a public policy favoring parental preinjury waivers as a condition to allowing minors to participate in sporting and recreational activities and how this ought to be reflected in our state's common law.