Recreation Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA)

Pennsylvania Statute 68 P.S. § 477 

Recreational Use of Land and Water Act

Purpose

The purpose of the Recreation Use of Land and Water Act (also known as “RULWA”) is “to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreation without charging for access. RULWA limits owners’ liability for personal injury and loss of property by limiting the duty of care that owners traditionally owe to people entering their land. It provides that landowners have no duty to keep their land safe for recreational users and have no duty to warn of dangerous conditions. This immunity from liability does not protect landowners who willfully or maliciously fail to warn of dangerous conditions or who charge for admission.

The General Assembly most recently amended this 1966 in 2018 to better protect landowners.

Who’s Protected and When

The Act protects public and private landowners as well as tenants, lease holders (such as hunting clubs), and other persons or organizations “in control of the premises.” RULWA protects easement holders when they control the land. When they lack control, they simply and generally are not subject to landowner-negligence liability.

Pennsylvania’s Torts Claims Act and Sovereign Immunity Act shield municipalities and Commonwealth agencies from claims of willful misconduct. Liability may only be imposed upon these entities for their negligent acts, and then, only within specifically defined exceptions to immunity. Courts have repeatedly held that where a RULWA protects a government landowner from a negligence claim, these acts effectively close RULWA’s loophole for willful conduct – resulting in total immunity.

When the Act Doesn’t Apply

Landowners can still be liable for “willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition.” Landowners may be liable when they have actual knowledge of a dangerous condition and the danger is not obvious to those entering the land.

Implications of Allowing Public Access

The 2018 amendment widened the range of recreational activities covered by RULWA. Recreational purpose is now defined as “any activity undertaken or viewed for exercise, sport, education, recreation, relaxation, or pleasure.” The Act goes on to state that this: Includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, recreational noncommercial aircraft operations or recreational noncommercial ultralight operations on private airstrips, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle and motorcycle riding, nature study, water skiing, water sports, cave exploration and viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites.”

The absence of a particular activity from the list (e.g. running, birdwatching, sledding, biking) does not indicate lack of RULWA protection. Listed activities are examples of the types of activities covered. Courts have not hesitated to apply RULWA in a range of cases involving activities not explicitly listed in the Act.

Failure to Warn

Although RULWA immunizes landowners from negligence claims, landowners remain liable for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn recreational users of a dangerous condition. Proving a willful failure to warn requires, at minimum: proof of landowner’s actual knowledge (as distinguished from things that the landowner should have known) of the dangerous condition; that the condition would not be obvious to visitors; and that the failure to warn or take corrective action was willful, as opposed to merely negligent.

Improvements to Land

The primary issue is whether RULWA’s protections apply to improvements to real estate, such as access ramps and paths, including ramps for persons with disabilities, fishing and boating piers, boat launch ramps, docks, stream improvement projects, dams and impoundments. In 1986, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the Act to be focused on “large” and “largely improved” parcels. A later Supreme Court ruling blocked RULWA’s application to recreational improvements requiring regular maintenance for their safe environment. A complex and inconsistent patchwork of cases followed.

The 2018 amendment to RULWA substantially expanded the Act’s definition of “land” to mean: land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, amenities, structures, boating access and launch ramps, bridges, fishing piers, boat decks, ramps, paths, paved or unpaved trails, hunting blinds and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty. The term shall also include areas providing access to, or parking for, lands and waters, including, but not limited to, access ramps, trails or piers for use by recreational users with disabilities. This expanded definition strengthened the protections RULWA protection and enabled some landowners to confidently open their land to recreational users, and to more readily make improvements that support users’ enjoyment, free of charge.

Payments to Landowners

RULWA protection is generally not available if owners charge for admission. However, the 2018 amendment clarified that  landowners do not forfeit their RULWA protections by accepting the following contributions:

• Voluntary contributions
• In-kind contributions (e.g., receiving the meat of deer hunted on the property)
• Contributions made to an owner that are not retained by the owner and are used by the owner exclusively for: conserving or maintaining the land, paying taxes on the land, or paying for liability insurance on the land.
• Court decisions provide additional guidance about payments or fees that do not generally negate RULWA protection:
• Payment of a permit fee for a pavilion or other facility
• Entry fees for a particular facility may not defeat a RULWA defense as to other areas of the property.
• A fee to participate in an activity on land that is otherwise freely open to the public.

Lawsuits

The reality is anyone can be sued for anything. However, courts can promptly dismiss claims that lack legal merit. Statutory immunities, like RULWA, greatly increase the odds that a court will dismiss a claim associated with recreational use of land. And for those claims not dismissed, RULWA substantially boost the likelihood of a landowner-friendly outcome. All of this disincentivizes the filing of claims in the first place. RULWA enables landowners to confidently invite or permit recreational use, knowing that their exposure for liability is quite limited.