Florida Recreational land Use Act-little known law

[diggummup]

I just thought everyone should know of this law.I'm sure not many of you do.I didn't until ivan salis pointed it out.It has to do with liability issues when (in this case) metal detecting on private property.In other words ,anyone that owns property owner and lets you detect can't be held responsible for injuries that occur to you while pursuing your hobby of metal detecting on their property.Permission to detect may be a little easier to obtain if landowners where to be made aware of this.You know how everybody is worried about getting sued nowadays if someone gets hurt while on their property.Now they don't have to worry about it.Anyway,here is the law and how it is written-




The 2006 Florida Statutes

Title XXVIII
NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSERVATION, RECLAMATION, AND USE Chapter 375
OUTDOOR RECREATION AND CONSERVATION LANDS View Entire Chapter

375.251 Limitation on liability of persons making available to public certain areas for recreational purposes without charge.--

(1) The purpose of this act is to encourage persons to make available to the public land, water areas and park areas for outdoor recreational purposes by limiting their liability to persons going thereon and to third persons who may be damaged by the acts or omissions of persons going thereon.

(2)(a) An owner or lessee who provides the public with a park area or other land for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that park area or land safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on that park area or land of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities thereon. An owner or lessee who provides the public with a park area or other land for outdoor recreational purposes shall not by providing that park area or land:

1. Be presumed to extend any assurance that such park area or land is safe for any purpose,

2. Incur any duty of care toward a person who goes on that park area or land, or

3. Become liable or responsible for any injury to persons or property caused by the act or omission of a person who goes on that park area or land.

(b) This section shall not apply if there is any charge made or usually made for entering or using such park area or land, or any part thereof, or if any commercial or other activity, whereby profit is derived from the patronage of the general public, is conducted on such park area or land, or any part thereof.

(3)(a) An owner of land or water area leased to the state for outdoor recreational purposes owes no duty of care to keep that land or water area safe for entry or use by others, or to give warning to persons entering or going on that land or water of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities thereon. An owner who leases land or water area to the state for outdoor recreational purposes shall not by giving such lease:

1. Be presumed to extend any assurance that such land or water area is safe for any purpose,

2. Incur any duty of care toward a person who goes on the leased land or water area, or

3. Become liable or responsible for any injury to persons or property caused by the act or omission of a person who goes on the leased land or water area.

(b) The foregoing applies whether the person going on the leased land or water area is an invitee, licensee, trespasser, or otherwise.

(4) This act does not relieve any person of liability which would otherwise exist for deliberate, willful or malicious injury to persons or property. The provisions hereof shall not be deemed to create or increase the liability of any person.

(5) The term "outdoor recreational purposes" as used in this act shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, motorcycling, and visiting historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.


Copyright © 1995-2006 The Florida Legislature •

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[G.I.B.]

Hand this to someone and then ask if you can go on their property...

Wanna guess what the answer will be?

It's a shame, but anyone can sue anyone for anything anytime. It's a lawyers job to push all legal limits and charge by the hour. I wonder what 'case law' is on the books regarding this statue. The law can be on the books, but each judicial circuit can have a different interpretation of it providing different results.

My guess is that you would have much better luck with a polite attitude and a smile.

 

[diggummup]

Hand this to someone and then ask if you can go on their property...

Wanna guess what the answer will be?

It's a shame, but anyone can sue anyone for anything anytime. It's a lawyers job to push all legal limits and charge by the hour. I wonder what 'case law' is on the books regarding this statue. The law can be on the books, but each judicial circuit can have a different interpretation of it providing different results.

My guess is that you would have much better luck with a polite attitude and a smile.

Whatever dude.I give the info.,you take out of it what you want.

 

[grinin]

Glad this was posted!
Simply knowing the statute exists is what makes this important.

There are plenty of folks who would be willing to allow metal detecting on their land as long as they knew they would not be liable for accidents, stupidity, etc. Now you can say: "actually, Florida has passed a law saying you can not be held liable by people you allow to use your land for recreation"

"Really?"

"Sure, I have a copy if you want"

Obviously there are also folks who simply use "liability" as a polite way of saying No.

 

[Bridge End Farm]

Thanks for the info, I will copy and remember it. I have found or gotten more "no sir you can't" when it comes to private property due to people not being caring to where they are hunting. One old homesite that I think was promising. When I knocked and asked, the owner took me to the property lot showing me. Where someone he had let on a few years ago it was escavated from the I guess you could say potholes left by shovels. All I could do was say I understand for what was done to their property and hope one day he would give me a chance to prove most MDs were not like that. Some MD buds and I brought a pickup truck load of dirt over and refilled/level'd them, trying to butter him back up honestly. He was impressed and thankful but still the answer was no.

 

[ivan salis]

yes knowing that "law" and then showing it to a otherwize freindly person could help "tip" the scales into a "yes"---many folks are worried about "nitwit" type lawsuits ---this eases their "fears" and thus if they then say "no" you know its no the fear of a "nitwit" lawsuit thats behind their no ---many folks are quite surprized and pleased to find out the info--glad that I am able to provide a "tool" that folks can use to remove one of the possible "blocks" that might hold back otherwize huntible land --- Ivan

 

[diggummup]

Exactly. Thanks again for the info Ivan.

 

[ivan salis]

where does it state that it must be registered with the state at ?---I would not want to premote a half truth---under what section is that written ? if you know please inform me and I'll look it up --- I do want to be correct in what I say and not accidently misled anyone in any way---Ivan

 

[grinin]

I didn't take Guyinback's reply as being hostile. I think most of us are here to promote the hobby and healthy discourse is only part of that. There are far more contentious boards than this.

That is the full text of the statute. However it is a subsection of "OUTDOOR RECREATION AND CONSERVATION LANDS" which is itself a subsection of "Title XXVIII NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSERVATION, RECLAMATION, AND USE" If one of those sections limit the "Park area to those registered with the State of Florida and designated for that use" I could see that as a problem.

It would be good to have clarification but as it reads now, I still think it would ease some minds.

 

[ivan salis]

(1) the purpose is to get landowners to make avialble to the public* LAND ,WATER AND PARKS ---NOT (PUBLIC LAND*) the wording is meant to get landowners to open up access to land for rec reasons with out being sued by those they let use the land for rec reasons,thus easing their fears.

 

[diggummup]

I'm sorry if my reply (#2) seemed "hostile" to you SWR. I thought this was something that was helpful and informative to all Floridians. Thank you for pointing out the err of my ways. Have a nice evening. Later dude! (no negative connotation implied)

 

[G.I.B.]

I still think that a warm smile and friendly greeting will go further than whipping out the Florida Statutes...

In any event, here is some more information:

The full text is available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE111

Here is a sample:

What is the liability for those people who enter my property to hunt, fish, or for other recreational purposes?

Florida Statute section 375.251 covers the limitation on liability of persons making available to the public certain areas for recreational purposes without charge. If a landowner makes a property available to the public for outdoor recreational purposes free of charge, the landowner is not responsible for keeping that park area or land safe for entry or use by others, or for giving warning of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on the property to persons entering or going on that park area or land. This limitation on liability will not apply if any commercial or other profitable activity is derived from the general public's patronage on the property. Also, any person remains liable for deliberate, willful, or malicious injuries.

Summary

There are three types of individuals who may enter upon your property. The first type is an invitee (a person who enters onto your property either by direct or implied invitation). For these persons, the property owner is responsible for keeping his property in a reasonably safe condition and warning the invitee of any dangerous conditions.

The second type is a licensee (an individual who enters upon the property of another for personal convenience, pleasure, or benefit). For these persons, the property owner is responsible to avoid dangerous conditions due to gross negligence, to not willfully harm such a person, and to warn the licensee of any dangerous conditions that are not readily noticeable.

The third type of person is a trespasser. For these persons, the landowner must not intentionally cause them harm and, if aware of the trespasser's presence, the landowner must warn the trespasser of any dangerous conditions that are not readily noticeable.

 

[gollum]

The third type of person is a trespasser. For these persons, the landowner must not intentionally cause them harm and, if aware of the trespasser's presence, the landowner must warn the trespasser of any dangerous conditions that are not readily noticeable.

HAHAHAHA! Yes Mr. Trespasser. Look out for that burglar alarm and those dogs! I LOVE THE LAW!

Mike

 

[grinin]

(1) the purpose is to get landowners to make avialble to the public* LAND ,WATER AND PARKS ---NOT (PUBLIC LAND*) the wording is meant to get landowners to open up access to land for rec reasons with out being sued by those they let use the land for rec reasons,thus easing their fears.

Ivan, once you open your land/water/parks to the public....it becomes Public Land, Public Water and/or Public Parks. You can't inject your own meaning for something that is written into the Definition.

Actually, Ivan is reading it the same way I did. The statement "once you open your land..." is injecting meaning that is not included in the statute (unless there is another definition we are missing). You have already given the definition per the statute, so let's just use that.

Our argument (and I use the term in a legal context, not that I harbor any hostility to anyone) boils down to whether or not 375.251 REQUIRES the landowner to have his lands officially designated as "Public Lands" per the strict definition in the statutes. I contend that it does NOT. It simply "Limits liability of persons making available to the public ...."

 

[grinin]

It is a clear definition. We are saying that 375.251 does NOT require the land be designated as "public land" for the landowner to see the benefit of limited liability from 375.251.



Additionally it appears that a couple learned guys from IFAS look at it the same way. (thanks for the link GuyinBack) In their Handbook of Florida Fence and Property Law: Visitors and Responsibilities to Visitors which is "designed to inform property owners of their ... responsibilities towards persons who enter their property" (primarily directed at over 19,000 farms and other agricultural interests in the state) ....

What is the liability for those people who enter my property to hunt, fish, or for other recreational purposes?

Florida Statute section 375.251 covers the limitation on liability of persons making available to the public certain areas for recreational purposes without charge. If a landowner makes a property available to the public for outdoor recreational purposes free of charge, the landowner is not responsible for keeping that park area or land safe for entry or use by others, or for giving warning of any hazardous conditions, structures, or activities on the property to persons entering or going on that park area or land. This limitation on liability will not apply if any commercial or other profitable activity is derived from the general public's patronage on the property. Also, any person remains liable for deliberate, willful, or malicious injuries.

Nowhere in their in handbook does it tellthe farmers "but make sure you get your land designated by the state as "Public Land" otherwise you will be S O L. Not to mention that the number of farmers who would "want to have their land converted to Public Park at the state level (perfect decription, btw)" would be few to none.

 

[grinin]

Agree entirely on handbook "covering everything". The argument stands on its own merits.

Handbook is simply an example of others (more educated than me, and certainly peer reviewed) using same interpretation and disseminating it to THOUSANDS of individuals, businesses, etc in the state. And "make sure you get your land designated by the state as Public Land" is not a minor detail that would be overlooked considering the audience to which this Handbook was directed.

 

[G.I.B.]

Okay… Here is why the statement, ‘If it wasn’t for all the lawyers, we wouldn’t need all the lawyers’ comes into play.

The lawmakers, being lawyers themselves, can’t write a law that covers each and every circumstance. Even if they could, more lawyers and judges (who are also lawyers) will change it with ‘case law’ in an attempt to interpret the intended meaning of the original law into what they really meant it to mean in the first place.

In summary: The statute’s intent is to hold harmless persons who allow their private property open to public use by the litigation crazed public, thereby giving us good citizens someplace else to play and recreate, and go metal detecting…

 

[teverly]

Yea, sec.3 part A I can see some slick lawyer saying that if you bought a hunting license and you were hunting under this law that would be considered being charged a fee and that since someone[the state made money off your license] then you are actually responsible.
I know you will disagree,but think about the way things are today.A criminal breaks into your home and is injured or killed while you are defending yourself and he or his family can sue you...yes i know you guys in florida and a few other places have the castle doctrine,but we are all not so lucky yet.......
Be careful out there and good luck