Dickinson v. Clark

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Merit Decision: No Immunity for Park for Injury to Recreational User from Rock Thrown by Mower. Combs v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Parks & Recreation

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanApril 20, 2016

    )Scott v. Wright, 486 N.W.2d 40 (Iowa, 1992) (landowner could be liable for the negligent operation of a tractor, because “[n]othing in the language of [Iowa’s recreational use statute] suggests a legislative intent to immunize all negligent acts of landowners, their agents, or employees.”)Young v. Salt Lake City Corp., 876 P.2d 376 (Utah 1994) (explaining, in a case involving the collision of a maintenance vehicle with a bicyclist, “The operative language of the Act does not purport to relieve landowners of their separate duty to conduct themselves in a reasonably safe manner while on the premises.”)Dickinson v. Clark, 767 A.2d 303 (Me., 2001) (the Maine recreational use statute does not apply to a claim alleging negligent supervision and instruction on the use of a wood splitter.)Klein v. United States, 235 P.3d 42 (Cal. 2010) (The statutory phrase “keep the premises safe” is an apt description of the property-based duties underlying premises liability, a liability category that does not include vehicular negligence.)Merit DecisionExecutive SummaryUnder the recreational user statute, there is no liability for injuries caused by a defective condition of the property.