Boland v. Nevada Rock and Sand Co.
1995 Nev. LEXIS 60, 894 P.2d 988, 111 Nev. 608 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Nevada's recreational use statute (NRS 41.510) generally immunizes landowners, lessees, or occupants from liability for injuries sustained by recreational users on their property, unless the landowner engaged in willful or malicious conduct, which requires more than mere knowledge of recreational use or general hazards.
Facts:
- On March 4, 1989, Jonathan D. Boland, Marc H. Cram, and Kent E. Wilson drove to an area outside Henderson, Nevada, to ride a dirt bike.
- Boland, an experienced dirt bike rider, took a turn on the dirt bike after Cram and Wilson had ridden it, following the same route.
- Boland rode to the top of a hill, and seeing that it was level, he proceeded to pick up speed to ten or fifteen miles per hour before seeing a drop-off, which he could not stop in time to avoid.
- As a result of his fall, Boland became a paraplegic.
- Most of the 320-acre area where the men were riding was owned by Stewart Brothers Company, with some portions owned by Nevada Rock & Sand Company (Nevada Rock) or Nevada Ready Mix Corporation (NRM).
- The area was described as "big piles of sand in the middle of flat nowhere," and Boland stated he did not realize they were riding in a commercial gravel pit containing three huge reject sand piles created by NRM and Nevada Rock's operations.
Procedural Posture:
- Jonathan D. Boland sued Stewart Brothers Company, Nevada Rock & Sand Company, Nevada Ready Mix Corporation, and their officers, directors, or owners, alleging responsibility for his injuries.
- Both Boland and the respondents filed motions for summary judgment in the district court.
- The district court held a hearing on both motions and granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, primarily based on Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 41.510.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Nevada's recreational use statute (NRS 41.510) immunize landowners from liability for injuries sustained by a dirt bike rider on their property, even if the property contains commercial mining operations, and was the landowners' failure to warn of a drop-off considered willful or malicious conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, Nevada's recreational use statute (NRS 41.510) immunizes the landowners from liability for the dirt bike rider's injuries, and their failure to warn was not willful or malicious conduct. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on NRS 41.510, finding that the statute applied because the respondents were considered owners, lessees, or occupants of the land; the land was the type intended to be covered (rural, semi-rural, or nonresidential open land for recreation); and Boland was engaged in a covered recreational activity (dirt bike riding, as established in Brannan v. Nevada Rock & Sand). The court determined that Nevada Rock and NRM, despite arguments of only holding licenses, were occupants due to their long-term mining operations creating a 'degree of permanence' or their alleged ownership interests in Boland's complaint. The court further concluded that respondents did not act willfully or maliciously. 'Wilful or wanton misconduct' requires intentional wrongful conduct with knowledge that serious injury will probably result, or with a wanton or reckless disregard of possible results (Davies v. Butler). No evidence indicated respondents were aware of previous accidents on the sand piles, even if they knew dirt bikers used the property, which is insufficient to establish willful conduct. Lastly, the court rejected Boland's argument that respondents disregarded a known safety procedure by failing to safeguard excavations under NRS 455.010, reasoning that it would be unreasonable to require fencing a 320-acre area, that such a requirement would contradict the policy of encouraging recreational land use under NRS 41.510, and that Boland fell off a hill while already inside the excavation, not 'into' an excavation as contemplated by the statute (Gard v. United States).
Analysis:
This case clarifies the broad scope of Nevada's recreational use statute (NRS 41.510), extending its protection beyond formal owners or lessees to include 'occupants' who demonstrate a 'degree of permanence' on the land, such as long-term mining operations. It further solidifies the high bar for proving 'willful or malicious conduct,' requiring concrete evidence of prior accidents or specific knowledge of probable harm, not just general awareness of recreational activity on the property. The ruling also underscores the principle that specific recreational immunity statutes often take precedence over general safety regulations when determining landowner liability in open, rural recreational areas, thus protecting landowners who allow public recreational access.
