Outdoor recreational premises; include use of ATVs and off-road vehicles.
HB104 amends Mississippi’s recreational use statute to clarify and expand liability protections for landowners and lessees who open land or water areas to the public for outdoor recreation. The bill states that by allowing recreational use, an owner or lessee does not guarantee the premises are safe, does not assume a duty of care, and is not liable for injuries or property damage caused by users of the property. It also makes clear that these protections apply regardless of whether the entrant is an invitee, licensee, trespasser, or otherwise.
The bill specifically expands the definition of “outdoor recreational purposes” to include off-road vehicles and all-terrain vehicles, alongside existing activities such as hunting, fishing, boating, camping, hiking, cycling, and swimming. It preserves existing exceptions for deliberate, willful, or malicious injury and does not change the rule that the statute does not apply when a fee is charged or a concession is operated on the property. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
HB104 would amend Sections 89-2-1, 89-2-3, 89-2-5, and 89-2-7 of the Mississippi Code, strengthening and clarifying the state’s recreational landowner immunity framework. Its practical effect is to reduce potential tort exposure for private landowners, lessees, and others who allow public recreational access, while expressly bringing ATV and off-road vehicle use within the statute’s protected recreational activities. The bill does not eliminate liability for intentional misconduct and does not apply where access fees or concessions are involved.
Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears broadly pro-landowner and pro-recreation, with a policy goal of encouraging owners to open property for public outdoor use by reducing liability concerns. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, opposition, or amendments. The available context suggests the bill is framed as a clarification and expansion of existing immunity rather than a major policy shift.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between encouraging public recreational access and limiting remedies for injured users of private land. Supporters would likely emphasize reduced liability and clearer protections for landowners, especially for ATV and off-road vehicle use. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on the breadth of the immunity language, particularly the removal of duties to inspect, warn, or keep premises safe for all categories of entrants. The bill preserves exceptions for willful or malicious conduct and for fee-based or concession-based operations, which may address some concerns.