An Act Concerning Legal Liability For Agricultural Operations That Are Engaged In Agritourism.
Summary
HB 5183 would amend Connecticut’s general statutes to reduce legal exposure for agricultural operations that offer agritourism activities. The bill provides that visitors, customers, or other invitees who participate in agritourism would be deemed to assume the risk of injury from the inherent risks of those activities, so long as the agricultural operation posts a clearly visible warning sign informing them of that assumption of risk.
In practical terms, the bill creates a liability shield for farm-based tourism and recreation businesses, such as pick-your-own operations, hayrides, corn mazes, farm visits, and similar activities. It does not eliminate all potential claims, but it would make it harder for injured participants to recover for harms tied to the ordinary, inherent dangers of agritourism when the required notice is posted.
Impact
The bill would amend chapter 925 of the Connecticut General Statutes to add an assumption-of-risk rule specific to agritourism on agricultural operations. It would affect the liability standards applied to farm operators and their visitors by limiting negligence claims for injuries arising from inherent agritourism risks, provided the operator complies with the signage requirement. The measure would primarily benefit agricultural businesses that diversify into tourism and recreational activities, while shifting more responsibility to participants.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or formal vote sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears supportive of agricultural operators and framed as a business liability protection measure. The overall tone is protective of agritourism and aimed at encouraging or preserving these activities by reducing legal uncertainty.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between protecting farm businesses and preserving injury remedies for visitors. Supporters would likely favor limiting liability for inherent risks and reducing insurance or litigation costs for farmers, while opponents could argue that the bill may weaken protections for injured guests or create disputes over what counts as an “inherent risk” and whether warning signage was adequate. The bill also leaves open questions about how broadly courts would interpret agritourism and the scope of the liability shield.