De Baritault v. Salt Lake City Corp.

• Decision Date: 14 March 1996
• Docket Number: No. 940293,940293
• Citation: 913 P.2d 743
• Parties: Henri De BARITAULT as parent and natural guardian of Marc Henri De Baritault, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellee. State of Utah, Intervenor.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 743

913 P.2d 743

Henri De BARITAULT as parent and naturalguardian of Marc Henri De Baritault, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, Defendant and AppelleeState of Utah, Intervenor.

No. 940293.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 14, 1996.

Edward T. Wells, West Valley, for plaintiff.

Randall Edwards, Salt Lake City, for defendant.

Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., Debra J. Moore, Carol Clawson, Asst. Att'ys Gen., for intervenor.

HOWE, Justice:

PlaintiffHenri De Baritault, parent and natural guardian of Marc De Baritault, a minor, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendantSalt Lake City Corporation.Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in holding that the Utah Limitation of Landowner Liability-Public Recreation Act (the "Act"), Utah Code Ann. §§ 57-14-1 to -7, bars his son's recovery for injuries suffered at a city park.

Since this review involves a grant of summary judgment, "we view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 233(Utah1993).

Laird Park is a city-owned park located in a residential neighborhood in Salt Lake City, Utah.Marc entered the park playground, and while using the toddler swing, he fell and injured his head on a cement ridge surrounding the play area.De Baritault charged the City with negligent design, construction, and maintenance of the playground, seeking to recover present and future medical expenses plus damages for pain, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, general damages, and all attorney fees and court costs.

The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the child was a recreational user of public lands held open without charge to the general public, the City had no duty toward him under the Act.De Baritault responded that the Act did not apply because the purpose of the Act was "to encourage private landowners to open up their lands for public use."Although the Act was amended in 1987 to apply to both "public and private landowners," De Baritault maintained that the Act did not apply to Laird Park since the City had not opened the park in reliance upon the Act.He also challenged the constitutionality of the Act under the open courts, equal protection, and due process provisions of the Utah Constitution.

The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Marc was a nonpaying recreational user of Laird Park and that "[u]nder the terms of the Act, Salt Lake City Corporation owed no duty of care to [the child] ... to keep Laird Park safe or give any warning of any dangerous condition thereon."The court also concluded that there was no evidence of deliberate, malicious, or willful conduct by the City, which would have resulted in liability under section 57-14-6 of the Act.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Utah R.Civ.P. 56(c);Higgins, 855 P.2d at 235."An issue of statutory interpretation is one of law, and this court is free to draw its own conclusions regarding it."Jerz v. Salt Lake County, 822 P.2d 770, 771(Utah1991)(citingBerube v. Fashion Centre Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033, 1038(Utah1989)).In so doing, we accord no deference to the trial court's resolution of legal issues.Higgins, 855 P.2d at 235.

We first examine the applicability of the Limitation of Landowner Liability Act to city parks, beginning with the Act itself and its history.In 1965, the Council of State Governments drafted a model act limiting the duties and liability of certain landowners to recreational users.Crawford v. Tilley, 780 P.2d 1248, 1250(Utah1989)(citing Council of State Governments, Public Recreation on Private Lands: Limitations on Liability, 24 Suggested State Legislation 150 (1965)[hereinafter Council of State Governments]).As of 1988, forty-eight states had adopted recreational use statutes limiting landowner liability.A number of states, including Utah, adopted the model act virtually unchanged.¹Redinger v. Clapper's Tree Serv., Inc., 419 Pa.Super. 487, 615 A.2d 743, 745(1992)(citingBetty van der Smissen, Legal Liability & Risk Management for Public & Private Entities 190 (Anderson PublishingCo.1990)), appeal denied, 533 Pa. 652, 624 A.2d 111(1993).

The stated legislative purpose of the Act"is to encourage public and private owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for those purposes."Utah Code Ann. § 57-14-1.Because Utah enacted the model act almost verbatim, complete with the statement of purpose, "its preamble is relevant in construing the legislature's intent."Crawford, 780 P.2d at 1250.

Recent years have seen a growing awareness of the need for additional recreational areas to serve the general public.The acquisition and operation of outdoor recreational facilities by governmental units is on the increase.However, large acreages of private land could add to the outdoor recreation resources available....[I]n those circumstances where private owners are willing to make their land available to members of the general public without charge, it is possible to argue that every reasonable encouragement should be given to them.

Id.(citingCouncil of State Governmentsat 150).

The definition section of the Act states in pertinent part:

(1)"Land" means any land within the territorial limits of the state of Utah and includes roads, water, water courses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.

(2)"Owner" includes the possessor of any interest in the land, whether public or private land....

(3)"Recreational purpose" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, skiing, snowshoeing, camping, picnicking, hiking, studying nature, waterskiing, engaging in water sports, using boats, using off-highway vehicles or recreational vehicles, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.

Utah Code Ann. § 57-14-2.

The Act further provides that in the absence of willful and malicious conduct by the owner or the charging of an admission fee, "an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by any person using the premises for any recreational purpose, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on those premises to those persons."Id.§ 57-14-3.Furthermore, an owner who invites or permits any person to use the land, without charge, for any recreational purpose does not

(1) make any representation or extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;

(2) confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed;

(3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property caused by an act or omission of the person or any other person who enters upon the land....

Id.§ 57-14-4.

However, as one court aptly observed: "In spite of its conciseness and apparent simplicity, the [recreational use act] has managed to weave a tortured tapestry of decisional law in a multitude of jurisdictions....At the heart of the dispute is the ascertainment of what nature of land is contemplated as being removed from liability under the Act."Redinger, 615 A.2d at 746.Although all of the relevant jurisdictions emphasize that natural, undeveloped, and unimproved areas are most often targeted for protection, interpretations vary widely.For example:

Louisiana uses the term "type normally encountered in true outdoors," which does not include playground-slide in town park, a recreational area within a populated city adjacent to a much traveled lakeshore drive, a civic center, or a wooded area in the city administered by the park district.In California the court held that the immunity was only for unaltered natural condition areas....However, a 1985 Michigan Appeals case protected homeowners in their backyards.The Delaware court held that the statute did not apply to urban or residential areas improved with pools, tennis courts and the like; but the Ohio court included residential pools within the statute.However, Michigan extended application of Recreational Land Users Act to city property located in urban areas and then reversed itself in 1987....A 1984 Louisiana case held that playground bleachers were within the statute, but a 1986 Connecticut case held to the contrary on football stadium bleachers....Playgrounds have been held not within the statute; however a vacant lot used for informal recreation was held within the statute.

Redinger, 615 A.2d at 745-46(quotingLegal Liability & Risk Management, supra, at 207-09).

The inconsistency of case law interpreting similar or identical statutes requires us to apply the principles of statutory construction to the plain language of the Act while giving proper deference to our own precedent." 'The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the legislature in light of the purposes the statute was meant to achieve.' "Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co., 853 P.2d 877, 880(Utah1993)(quotingReeves v. Gentile, 813 P.2d 111, 115(Utah1991)).In addition, " 'if there is doubt or uncertainty as to the meaning or application of the provisions of an act, it is appropriate to analyze the act in its entirety, in light of its objective, and to harmonize its provisions in accordance with its intent and purpose.' "Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort, 808 P.2d 1037, 1045(Utah1991)(quotingOsuala v. Aetna Life & Cas., 608 P.2d 242, 243(Utah1980)).

Since the application of the Act to city parks or improved urban areas is a case of first impression in Utah, we will examine its treatment in selected other...