City of Louisville v. Silcox
1998 WL 559037, 1998 Ky. App. LEXIS 74, 977 S.W.2d 254 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Kentucky's Recreational Use Statute (KRS 411.190), a per-vehicle parking fee is not considered a "charge" for recreational use of the land that would remove the landowner's statutory immunity, provided that general access to the recreational area is otherwise available free of charge.
Facts:
- The City of Louisville (the City) owned and operated Otter Creek Park.
- A sign at the Gamettsville Picnic Area entrance to the park stated 'Entrance Fee 2.00 Per Car.'
- This fee was charged per vehicle only during peak hours to control the number of cars and was not dependent on the number of occupants.
- Pedestrians and bicyclists could enter the park at the same entrance for free, and other free entrances and parking areas were available.
- Laydell Silcox and his friends drove to the park and entered through the Gamettsville Picnic Area.
- After hiking to Otter Creek, Silcox jumped from a five-foot embankment into the muddy water.
- Silcox could not see what he was jumping into due to the muddy water and sustained a severe injury to his heel and foot.
Procedural Posture:
- Laydell Silcox filed a lawsuit against the City of Louisville in the Jefferson Circuit Court (a trial court) to recover damages for his injuries.
- During the trial, the City moved for a directed verdict, arguing it was immune from liability under the Kentucky Recreational Use Statute.
- The trial court denied the City's motion.
- Following the trial, a judgment was entered in favor of Silcox, awarding him $18,314.42 in damages.
- The City of Louisville (as appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
- Laydell Silcox (as appellee) filed a cross-appeal.
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 a per-vehicle parking fee, which is not required for general pedestrian or bicycle entry to a park, constitute a 'charge' for the recreational use of the land under Kentucky's Recreational Use Statute (KRS 411.190), thereby negating the landowner's immunity from liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Guidugli, J.
No. A per-vehicle parking fee is not a 'charge' sufficient to defeat a landowner's immunity under KRS 411.190 when it is not a prerequisite for entering the land for recreational purposes. The court's reasoning, guided by persuasive authority from Georgia and other jurisdictions with similar statutes, distinguishes between a fee for a specific service like parking and a general admission fee for recreational use. The evidence showed the $2.00 fee was strictly a vehicle parking fee for a specific lot, not an admission fee for the park itself. This conclusion is supported by the facts that entry was free for pedestrians and bicyclists, other free entrances existed, and the fee was per car, not per person. Therefore, the fee was not paid in exchange for permission to enter the park for recreational purposes, and the City retained its immunity under the statute. Furthermore, the City's failure to warn of the natural and obvious dangers of jumping into a muddy creek did not constitute 'willful or malicious' conduct that would trigger another exception to immunity.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of the 'charge' exception within Kentucky's Recreational Use Statute, establishing a significant precedent for landowners, particularly municipalities, that operate public parks. By distinguishing between fees for ancillary services (like parking) and true admission fees, the decision allows landowners to generate revenue for specific amenities without forfeiting the broad liability protection the statute provides. This interpretation aligns with the statute's purpose of encouraging landowners to make their property available for public recreation. Future cases will likely use this decision to analyze whether various fees (e.g., for facility rentals, equipment, or special events) negate statutory immunity, focusing on whether general access to the recreational land remains free.
Unlock the full brief for City of Louisville v. Silcox