AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 89-2-1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY IMMUNITY FOR LANDOWNERS WHO ALLOW RECREATIONAL USE OF THEIR PROPERTY; TO AMEND SECTION 89-2-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO INCLUDE OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AND ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES AS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES; TO AMEND SECTIONS 89-2-5 AND 89-2-7, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CONFORM TO THE PRECEDING SECTIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Impact
The bill modifies definitions and liabilities related to outdoor recreational activities to include off-road vehicles and all-terrain vehicles among the activities that landowners can permit without risk of liability. This broadened definition of outdoor recreational purposes aims to reflect modern recreational trends and enhance public access to varied outdoor experiences. The proposed changes to the law include specifying that landowners do not owe a duty of care to ensure safety on their properties nor are they obliged to keep it safe for persons utilizing the land for recreational activities.
Summary
House Bill 971 aims to amend several sections of the Mississippi Code of 1972 related to outdoor recreational activities. The core purpose of this bill is to clarify and enhance the legal protections for landowners who permit public access to their lands for recreational uses. It explicitly states that these landowners will not incur liability for injuries that occur on their properties when they are opened for outdoor recreational purposes. This change seeks to encourage more property owners to allow public access by reducing their potential legal risks.
Contention
While the intent of the bill is to promote outdoor recreational use of private lands, concerns may arise regarding the potential for increased accidents or injuries without sufficient oversight. Critics might argue that removing a landowner's duty of care could lead to unsafe conditions for the public. Furthermore, the measure specifies that landowners are not liable unless intentional or malicious harm occurs, which means that if an accident results from negligence, landowners could remain indemnified. This has raised questions about the balance between encouraging public access to recreational areas and ensuring safety standards are honored.