AN ACT relating to landowner liability for recreational use permission.
Summary
HB 114 amends Kentucky’s recreational use and landowner liability statutes to expand and clarify protections for property owners who allow others to use land for outdoor recreation. The bill specifically adds rock climbing, bouldering, and rappelling to the list of covered recreational activities in KRS 150.645 and KRS 411.190, alongside existing activities such as hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking. It also updates the statutory definitions of recreational use and land to reflect a broader range of outdoor activities and terrain, including rocks, boulders, cliffs, roads, water, and related structures.
The bill preserves the general rule that landowners, lessees, and occupants owe no duty to keep premises safe or warn of hazards when they permit recreational use without charge, and it continues to shield them from liability for injuries caused by the negligent acts of permitted users. It also retains the existing exceptions for willful or malicious failure to warn and for situations where the landowner charges for access, while clarifying that certain public-land permit fees do not count as a charge. In addition, the bill reinforces that recreational use alone cannot support adverse possession or similar real-property claims, including prescriptive easements and rights-of-way.
Impact
HB 114 amends KRS 150.645 and KRS 411.190, Kentucky’s core recreational use immunity statutes. Its practical effect is to broaden liability protection for private landowners and other possessors who allow public access for outdoor recreation, especially for climbing-related activities, while leaving intact the main exceptions for willful misconduct and paid access. It also affects potential property-rights litigation by barring claims for adverse possession, prescriptive easements, or rights-of-way based solely on recreational use.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 96-0 and the Senate 38-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The lack of committee transcript discussion suggests there was little recorded debate and that the measure was viewed as a straightforward clarification and expansion of existing landowner protections.
Contention
There is little evidence of significant opposition in the available record. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the balance between encouraging landowners to open property for recreation and preserving liability remedies for injured users. The bill maintains the traditional exceptions for willful or malicious conduct and for charged access, so any potential concern would likely come from those worried about reduced avenues for injury claims, while supporters would emphasize expanded public access and clearer immunity for landowners, especially in climbing and similar outdoor recreation contexts.