Colorado 14ers private access liability

[peakbagger]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/simple-sign-allow-access-privately-192416483.html

NH has had a far broader recreational liability law on the books for a long time and on the rare occasions where people have tried to challenge it, the case gets shut down quickly.

I am not sure if it impacts the privately owned ones that charge a fee to climb them.

 

[sierra]

This is big news in CO, the Decalibron loop consisting of Mt. Democrat, Mt. Cameron, Mt. Lincoln and Mt. Bross is one of the most popular 14er hikes in CO and has been closed for years. People have snuck in and climbed them anyway and it has just been a big mess. I was lucky enough to do it before the closure. The family that owns the mines on it, which has been in the family for years, got worried when the boom of hikers flooded the area. Sound familiar?

 

[NovaNectar]

New Hampshire has a very strong law for recreational responsibility that has been effective for many years. It includes various activities and attempts to dispute it often quickly lose strength. I am not completely certain if this is also true for private areas that require payment to enter. It would be good to verify the information or ask someone knowledgeable in law before going there. Always better to play it safe!

 

[griffin]

In this latest bill, lawmakers worked to define the language of the “Colorado Recreational Use Statute” and list the circumstances in which an owner does not commit a willful or malicious failure.

The circumstances are as follows:

• The owner posts a warning sign at the primary access point where the individual entered the land, which sign satisfies certain criteria
• The owner maintains photographic or other evidence of the sign
• The dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity that caused the injury or death is described by the sign

I'm curious how that last bullet doesn't just muddy up the liability issue again, especially in light of the lawsuit filed by a mountain biker who crashed on a washed-out trail. Because sure, I might know if there are mines on my property (especially if my family built them), but keeping track of washed out or eroded trails on a large property?

 

[foulhooked]

I'm curious how that last bullet doesn't just muddy up the liability issue again, especially in light of the lawsuit filed by a mountain biker who crashed on a washed-out trail. Because sure, I might know if there are mines on my property (especially if my family built them), but keeping track of washed out or eroded trails on a large property?

"Trail minimally maintained; use at own risk"

 

[peakbagger]

IMHO, like most legislative efforts, the legislature approves the law and then the administrative bureaucracy develops regulations to enforce the law and eventually the courts interpret the intent after the fact. The NH judiciary has always supported a high bar to attempts at getting around the NH statutes, if they didnt, it dilutes the value to landowner to have the law in place. Hopefully Colorado's courts take the same approach. No doubt there will be attempts by aggrieved parties to get their day in court to argue a case even though they have little chance of winning, as they may be able to extract a settlement from an owner just to avoid the court case.