Changes the definition of owner to exclude the state and municipalities for the purposes of liability limitations relating to public use of private lands.
Summary
H5905 amends Rhode Island’s chapter on public use of private lands and liability limitations. The bill revises the statutory definition of “owner” in the recreational land-use liability law so that the state and municipalities are excluded from that definition for purposes of the chapter. The rest of the chapter’s definitions, including “charge,” “land,” “recreational purposes,” and “user,” remain unchanged.
In practical terms, the bill narrows the scope of who is treated as an “owner” under this liability-limitation framework when land is opened for recreational use. Because the chapter is designed to encourage landowners to allow public recreation by limiting liability, the amendment would alter how those protections apply when the land involved is owned or controlled by public entities rather than private parties. The act would take effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
The bill would amend Rhode Island General Laws § 32-6-2 in Chapter 32-6, which governs liability limitations for public use of private lands. By excluding the state and municipalities from the definition of “owner,” it changes the statutory coverage of the recreational-use liability protections as they relate to public entities, potentially affecting how claims are evaluated when government-owned land is opened for recreational use. The measure does not create new duties or rights outside this chapter, but it does modify the legal status of public owners under the existing liability scheme.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears technical and targeted rather than controversial on its face, focusing on a definitional change within an existing liability statute. The available materials do not show any formal sentiment from legislators or stakeholders.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the treatment of the state and municipalities under the recreational-use liability law. Supporters may view the change as a clarification that distinguishes public entities from private landowners, while opponents could be concerned that excluding public entities from the definition of “owner” may alter liability protections or expose government-owned recreational lands to different legal treatment. Because no hearing transcript or vote history is available, no specific individuals or groups are identified as taking either side.