Opinion ID: 848707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: THE RECREATIONAL LAND USE ACT AND WYMER v. HOLMES

Text: MCL 324.73301 states, in pertinent part, the following: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying to the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land a valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, or any other outdoor recreational use or trail use, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee. (2) A cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying to the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land a valuable consideration for the purpose of entering or exiting from or using a Michigan trailway as designated under part 721 or other public trail, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant, or lessee of the land unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee. For purposes of this subsection, a Michigan trailway or public trail may be located on land of any size including, but not limited to, urban, suburban, subdivided, and rural land. In Wymer, supra at 79, 412 N.W.2d 213, this Court held that the RUA was intended to apply to large tracts of undeveloped land suitable for outdoor recreational uses. Urban, suburban, and subdivided lands were not intended to be covered by the RUA. Id. [1] This Court read the plain language of the statute in light of the statute's general purpose. Id. at 76, 412 N.W.2d 213. We noted that the RUA listed activities that ordinarily can be accommodated on land that is difficult to defend from trespassers and difficult to make safe for people invited to participate in recreational activities. The commonality among all these enumerated uses is that they generally require large tracts of open, vacant land in a relatively natural state. Id. at 79, 412 N.W.2d 213. The current majority now states that there is absolutely no indication in the language of the RUA that the Legislature intended its application to be limited to vacant or undeveloped lands. Ante at 651. The majority's interpretation eliminates the liability of a landowner, tenant, or lessee when a person who does not pay consideration and who participates in any outdoor recreational activity is injured, unless the landowner, tenant, or lessee was grossly negligent or engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. A person participating in an outdoor recreational activity on the land of another is now essentially treated as a trespasser. Our citizens will be surprised to learn that when their children go to their friends' homes and jump rope or play hopscotch, the landowner is now only liable for acts of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.