Jennett v. United States
1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22866, 597 F. Supp. 110 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A recreational use statute that limits landowner liability for injuries on land made available to the public for recreational purposes without charge applies even when the injured party was engaged in a prohibited recreational activity, so long as the general geographical area was open for other permitted recreational activities.
Facts:
- On May 22, 1974, the Hop Brook Reservoir project area, consisting of 538 acres, was open to the public without charge for hiking, picnicking, fishing, and boating, but swimming was explicitly prohibited.
- The official policy of the Corps of Engineers was to prohibit swimming in the reservoir, and staff had previously instructed individuals found swimming to leave the area, including earlier on the day of the incident.
- A gate at the project entrance was customarily open from 8:00 a.m. until sundown, and it was open at the time of the incident.
- Corps of Engineers personnel, who worked 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, periodically checked the reservoir and beach area, but no personnel or lifeguards were present at the reservoir at the time of the drowning.
- No signs explicitly prohibiting swimming, lifesaving equipment, or a public telephone were in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir at the time of the incident.
- On May 22, 1974, at approximately 5:00 p.m., 16-year-old John I. Andrzywski attempted to swim across Hop Brook Reservoir with several other individuals.
- At or near the midpoint of the swim, Andrzywski called for help, indicating he couldn't make it across; his companions attempted to save him but were unsuccessful, and he disappeared below the surface.
- After reaching the other side, two companions called the Middlebury Police at approximately 5:17 p.m., and Andrzywski's body was recovered by fire department personnel around 6:00 p.m., with resuscitation efforts failing and his death confirmed as drowning.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, John I. Andrzywski's mother, filed a negligence action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1346 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
- The United States (defendant) moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff's son under Connecticut's recreational use statute.
- The parties entered into a stipulation of facts relevant to the issue of liability.
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 Connecticut's recreational use statute, which limits a landowner's duty of care for land made available to the public for recreational purposes without charge, apply when an individual is injured while engaged in a prohibited recreational activity on an area otherwise open for other recreational uses?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellen B. Burns
Yes, Connecticut's recreational use statute applies to limit the landowner's liability, even when an individual is injured while engaged in a prohibited recreational activity, as long as the general geographical area was open for other recreational uses without charge. The court reasoned that the language of Connecticut's recreational use statute, § 52-557g, does not limit its protection to specifically permitted recreational uses. It only specifies that protection applies to the geographical part of the land made available for recreational purposes. Since swimming is defined as a 'recreational purpose' under § 52-557f(4), and the reservoir was clearly open for other recreational uses like boating and fishing, the entire geographical area of the reservoir was 'made available' for recreational purposes. The statute's subsections, particularly (b)(1) and (b)(3), broadly state that an owner makes no representation of safety for 'any purpose' and incurs no liability for 'any injury,' reinforcing an expansive interpretation. The court emphasized that a contrary interpretation would discourage landowners from opening their lands for public use by forcing them to either permit all activities or vastly increase security, creating an anomalous situation where landowners would have a higher duty of care for prohibited activities than for permitted ones. The legislature could have easily included language to limit liability only for specific permitted activities if that was its intent. Therefore, the United States, by opening the reservoir for boating and fishing, made that area available for recreational purposes, and is immune from liability for Andrzywski's drowning.
Analysis:
This case provides a broad interpretation of recreational use statutes, extending landowner immunity beyond specifically permitted activities to the general geographical area made available for any recreational purpose. It reinforces the legislative intent to encourage landowners to open their property for public recreation by significantly limiting their tort liability. Future cases applying similar statutes would likely focus on whether the location of the injury was part of a broader area made available for any recreational activity without charge, rather than whether the specific activity engaged in by the injured party was officially sanctioned. The decision highlights the importance of statutory language and a strict construction that nonetheless leads to a broad application of immunity when public access for recreation is provided without fees.
