Court Opinion

ID: 9678481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:21:00.540773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:04.890608
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
I would agree with the cases cited in the majority opinion holding that absent anything on the face of the act indicating an intent to apply the Recreation Liability Act to municipalities, the act clearly does not apply.
The Recreation Liability Act was passed in 1965, at which time political subdivisions were immune from liability. It is clear from the legislative history that the act was passed to encourage private landowners to make their land and water areas available for recreational purposes such as fishing and hunting. There was no need to pass such an act to limit the liability of political subdivisions since they were already immune.
In 1969 the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act was adopted. In the absence of any legislative history, the majority presents that the Legislature played a great game of “now you have it, now you don’t.” Under the majority interpretation of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, the Legislature in reality retained *843most of the immunity the act purported to surrender. We have today gutted the act.
Under the majority opinion, the Recreation Liability Act would not apply to activities such as swimming pools, picnic shelters, organized softball leagues, zoos, stadiums, and auditoriums, although it would presumably apply outside the boundaries where those activities take place. If an identical condition is present inside the boundaries of a swimming pool area, and outside, the person inside injured thereby might recover while the nonpaying person outside could not, under the identical circumstances. I find it difficult to believe the Legislature intended such a result.
I agree with the conclusions of the trial court that allowing the dangerous condition to exist for 2 weeks on an implement used principally by children of tender years was negligence. The legislative history makes it clear that the Legislature, in passing the Recreation Liability Act, intended only to limit the liability of owners of private lands. I would affirm.
McCown, J., joins in this dissent.