McCarver v. Manson Park and Recreation Dist., 45967

Citation92 Wn.2d 370,597 P.2d 1362
Decision Date26 July 1979
Docket NumberNo. 45967,45967
PartiesNorma L. McCARVER, Administratrix of the Estate of Roberta Ann Peterson, Deceased, Norma L. McCarver, as mother of Roberta Ann Peterson, Deceased, and Floyd J. Peterson, as father of Roberta Ann Peterson, Deceased, Appellants, v. MANSON PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v. Katherine LEWIS and Dallas Singhurst, Respondents.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Bantz, Jansen, Klobucher, Clemons & Bury, A. O. Clemons, Jr., Spokane, for appellants

Jeffers, Danielson & Foreman, James M. Danielson, Gary N. Jardine, Wenatchee, for respondents.

HICKS, Justice.

Plaintiffs McCarver and Peterson appeal the dismissal with prejudice in the Chelan County Superior Court of their action for the wrongful death of their daughter, Roberta Ann Peterson. The Court of Appeals, Division Three, certified the matter to this court for determination of the applicability of RCW 4.24.210, a landowner liability limiting statute. We accepted certification and we affirm the trial court.

Manson Park and Recreation District was organized in 1971. The parties stipulated it to be an unincorporated entity, although it is also referred to in the briefs as a municipal corporation. Manson Park operates a public swimming area, extending into Lake Chelan, which has a U-shaped dock and diving platform 10 to 12 feet in height. In addition to the swimming area, the park provides baseball diamonds and playfields. Although the record fails to clearly identify the owner of the park land and water areas (there is some indication that ownership is in the United States Government), it is clear that Manson Park has the exclusive right of possession and control. In 1973, Manson Park initiated lifeguard services for the period of June through the Labor Day weekend. Apparently, the lifeguard was on duty 6 days a week.

July 16, 1973, the area was open to the public for swimming, although it was the lifeguard's day off. An unspecified number of teenagers in the swimming area of the park were engaged in a game called "rag tag". Roberta Ann Peterson, age 14, fell or was pushed from the diving tower during the activity. She struck her head on the dock sustaining injuries from which death resulted the same day.

July 15, 1976, Norma McCarver and Floyd Peterson, the deceased's mother and father, initiated this action against Manson Park and Recreation District for the wrongful The matter was scheduled for trial in Chelan County Superior Court in January 1978. Manson Park moved for summary judgment based upon the statutory bar of RCW 4.24.200-.210, which limits the liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for injuries to recreational users.

death of their minor child. The plaintiffs alleged that Manson Park was negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision at the swimming area, maintaining unsafe dangerous structures in the swimming area, and failing to establish and enforce reasonable rules and regulations to protect users. 1

The trial court conducted a telephone conference hearing among the attorneys for the parties on January 5, 1978. The plaintiffs stipulated that: (1) Manson Park allows the public to use the area for outdoor recreation without charging a direct fee; (2) the cause of the injury to the deceased was unintentional. The trial court granted partial summary judgment (ruling the statute to be applicable), but it determined that a question of material fact remained as to whether Manson Park maintained "a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted". See RCW 4.24.210.

Trial was set for January 9, 1978. On that date, a second telephone conference hearing was held. Plaintiffs stipulated that If RCW 4.24.200-.210 applied, Then the diving tower was not within the proviso, I. e., it was not "a known dangerous . . . condition . . ." Defendant Manson Park's motion for dismissal with prejudice was granted with plaintiffs' acquiescence. The trial court filed its order of dismissal The sole issue before us is the applicability of RCW 4.24.200-.210. RCW 4.24.210 provides:

on February 21, 1978. 2

Any public or private landowners or others in lawful possession and control of agricultural or forest lands or Water areas or channels and rural lands adjacent to such areas or channels Who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, Swimming, hiking, pleasure driving, the pleasure driving of all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles, boating, nature study, winter or water sports, viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, Without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users: Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of such a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted: Provided further, That nothing in RCW 4.24.200 and 4.24.210 limits or expands in any way the doctrine of attractive nuisance.

(First italics ours.)

The parties have stipulated that: (1) the situs of the accident is a "water area" and rural land adjacent thereto (as encompassed by RCW 4.24.210); (2) Manson Park allows the public to use the area for outdoor recreation "without charging a fee"; (3) the injuries incurred by Roberta Ann Peterson were "unintentional"; and (4) the diving tower did not constitute a "known dangerous artificial latent condition" for which conspicuous signs had not been posted. While not stipulated, there can be no dispute Based upon the stipulations entered, the first proviso of RCW 4.24.210 (warning of known dangerous artificial latent condition) is not applicable. The second proviso (attractive nuisance) is inapplicable in the instant case. The issue before the court is whether Manson Park is included in the class of protected landowners under the statute. If it is, the stipulated facts fall squarely within the terms of the statute, and the trial court's order must be sustained.

that the deceased minor was engaged in an outdoor recreational activity delineated in the statute (swimming).

The language of the statute expressly includes "public or private landowners or others in lawful possession and control". Appellants contend that Manson Park is not within the purview of the statute on three grounds: (1) statutory history; (2) statutory purpose; and (3) public policy.

STATUTORY HISTORY

The statutes were first enacted in 1967. Laws of 1967, ch. 216. The act is said to be patterned after a model act proposed in 1965 by the Council of State Governments. See 24 Suggested State Legislation, Public Recreation On Private Lands: Limitation On Liability, 150-52 (1965). See also J. Barrett, Good Sports And Bad Lands: The Application Of Washington's Recreational Use Statute Limiting Landowner Liability, 53 Wash.L.Rev. 1 (1977). The impetus behind the model legislation was "to encourage availability of private lands by limiting the liability of owners." The Council asserted that "in those instances where private owners are willing to make their land available to members of the general public without charge . . . every reasonable encouragement should be given". 24 Suggested State Legislation, Supra, at 150.

As originally enacted in 1967, the Washington act covered only "landowner(s)" of "agricultural or forest lands". The act listed certain activities as included within the term "outdoor recreation".

In 1969, the statutes were amended. Laws of 1969, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 24. Tort liability immunity was extended to "Others in lawful possession and control of agricultural or forest lands or Water areas or channels and rural lands adjacent to such areas or channels". (Italics ours.) RCW 4.24.210. The activities of swimming, boating and water sports were added to the list of outdoor recreational activities in RCW 4.24.210.

RCW 4.24.210 was amended in 1972. Laws of 1972, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 153, § 17. 3 The words "public or private" were inserted before the word "landowners" in the first sentence of the statute and the driving of "snowmobiles" and "all-terrain vehicles" (ATV) were added to the list of outdoor recreational activities. The statute now encompasses "(a)ny public or private landowners or others in lawful possession and control of agricultural or forest lands or water areas or channels and rural lands adjacent to such areas or channels . . ." The amendments to RCW 4.24.210 were included in a detailed bill which substantially revised the administration of ATV law. The purpose of the act was set forth therein as follows:

The purpose of this 1972 amendatory act is to increase the availability of trails and areas for all-terrain vehicles by granting authority to state and local governments to maintain a system of ATV trails and areas, and to fund the program to provide for such development. State lands should be used as fully as possible for all public recreation which is compatible with the income-producing requirements of the various trusts.

Laws of 1972, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 153, § 1, p. 473; RCW 67.32.080.

The limited legislative history available concerning the addition of the words "public or private" does not greatly assist us in the present inquiry. As originally introduced There can be no dispute that Manson Park is a public landowner or one in possession and control of land and water areas. Appellants contend that limitations on the liability of Public landowners under RCW 4.24.210 should be restricted to ATV and snowmobiling activities, because the purpose of the 1972 amendatory act is directed toward these activities. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 30 Enero 2014
    ...In support of its view, the City cites to several cases that do not address the question presented here. In McCarver v. Manson Park & Rec. Dist., 92 Wash.2d 370, 597 P.2d 1362 (1979), it was undisputed that the public was allowed to enter for a recreational purpose (indeed, that was the onl......
  • Olson v. Bismarck Parks & Recreation Dist.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • 16 Abril 2002
    ...693 F.2d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir.1982); Otteson v. United States, 622 F.2d 516, 519 (10th Cir. 1980); McCarver v. Manson Park and Recreation Dist., 92 Wash.2d 370, 597 P.2d 1362, 1366 (1979). Olson and Howard do not argue the District lacks the power to close or severely limit the use of its la......
  • Rivera v. Philadelphia Theological Seminary of St. Charles Borromeo, Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 23 Marzo 1984
    ...should be given." 24 Suggested State Legislation, supra at 150. McCarver v. Manson Park and Recreation District, 92 Wash.2d 370, 374, 597 P.2d 1362, 1364 (1979). See also: Watson v. City of Omaha, 209 Neb. 835, 838-40, 312 N.W.2d 256, 258 (1981). The Pennsylvania Recreation Use Act repealed......
  • Lockner v. Pierce Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 19 Abril 2018
    ...land is used exclusively for recreation, this court heard and rejected the reverse argument in McCarver v. Manson Park and Recreation District , 92 Wash.2d 370, 373, 376, 597 P.2d 1362 (1979). In that case, the plaintiff argued RCW 4.24.210 should be limited to land primarily used for other......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT