Relating generally to limiting landowner liability for the purpose of operation of all-terrain vehicles.
Summary
House Bill 5215 amends West Virginia’s landowner-liability statute to clarify and expand the definitions used in the state’s recreational use law, with a specific focus on all-terrain vehicle use. The bill’s stated purpose is to limit landowner liability when certain persons operate an ATV on private land. In the text, “recreational purposes” already includes motorcycle or all-terrain vehicle riding, and the bill appears aimed at ensuring that landowners who allow such use are protected under the state’s liability-limiting framework.
The measure updates §19-25-5, the definitions section of the article governing limitation of liability for landowners. It preserves and restates key terms such as “charge,” “land,” “owner,” “noncommercial recreational activity,” and “recreational purposes,” while also referencing existing exceptions for the Hatfield-McCoy Regional Recreation Authority and for vehicle operation under §17F-1-9. The practical effect is to reinforce the statutory basis for landowners to open land for recreation, including ATV riding, without expanding liability exposure beyond the limits already set in the recreational-use law.
Impact
If enacted, HB5215 would modify West Virginia Code §19-25-5 and affect how courts, landowners, and recreational users interpret liability protections for private land used for ATV riding and other noncommercial recreation. It would not create a new liability regime, but it would refine the definitions that determine when landowners receive immunity from claims arising from recreational use of their property. The bill could also affect landowners, ATV riders, recreational trail operators, and entities associated with the Hatfield-McCoy system by reinforcing existing statutory exceptions and protections.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive of landowner liability protection and recreational access, especially for ATV use. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or debate is documented here. The bill’s framing suggests a practical, pro-access approach intended to reduce legal risk for landowners who permit recreational vehicle use on their property.
Contention
The main policy issue is the balance between encouraging private land access for ATV recreation and limiting landowner exposure to lawsuits. Potential concerns would likely come from parties worried that broader liability immunity could reduce incentives for landowners to maintain safe conditions or could make it harder for injured users to recover damages. On the other hand, landowners, recreational trail advocates, and ATV users would likely favor the bill because it clarifies protections and may encourage more land to remain open for recreational use.