Scrapchansky v. Town of Plainfield
226 Conn. 446, 627 A.2d 1329, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 218 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Connecticut Recreational Land Use Act provides immunity to municipal landowners who make land available to the public without charge for recreational purposes, even when the use is subject to reasonable restrictions and the recreational activity is an organized team sport on improved land.
Facts:
- The town of Plainfield owned a baseball field adjacent to the Plainfield High School, which the Plainfield board of education controlled.
- Since 1973, the town permitted the Danielson/Moosup American Legion baseball team to use the field without charge, fee, or rent, whenever school was not in session.
- Any team desiring to use the field was required to obtain permission to avoid scheduling conflicts with other events.
- On June 22, 1986, Michael Scrapchansky was playing center field in a league game as a member of the Danielson/Moosup American Legion baseball team.
- While chasing a batted ball, Michael Scrapchansky ran into a stone wall that bordered the baseball field.
- As a result, Michael Scrapchansky suffered various personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Scrapchansky brought an action against the town of Plainfield and the Plainfield board of education in the trial court for personal injuries, alleging theories of negligence and nuisance.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under the Connecticut Recreational Land Use Act.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding they were immune from suit.
- Michael Scrapchansky (appellant) appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court.
- The appeal was then transferred by the Supreme Court of Connecticut to itself pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).
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 the Connecticut Recreational Land Use Act provide immunity from liability to a municipality for injuries sustained during an organized league baseball game on a town-owned field, where the field's use is subject to reasonable restrictions and made available without charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Callahan, J.
Yes, the Connecticut Recreational Land Use Act provides immunity to the town and board for injuries sustained during a league baseball game on their field because the field was made "available to the public" with reasonable restrictions for a "recreational purpose." The court concluded that reasonable restrictions on the use of land, such as limiting access to non-school hours or requiring permission to avoid scheduling conflicts, do not prevent the land from being considered "available to the public" under § 52-557g (a). The Act does not require land to be open simultaneously to all members of the public at all times; such an interpretation would be impractical and undermine the Act's purpose of encouraging landowners to permit public recreational use. Furthermore, the court held that an organized league baseball game constitutes a "recreational purpose" as defined by § 52-557f (4). This section states that "recreational purpose" "includes, but is not limited to" a list of activities. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument based on ejusdem generis that this list implied only informal, unstructured activities on natural land. It reasoned that excluding universally recognized recreational sports like baseball simply because they are organized would be an overly restrictive interpretation unintended by the legislature, especially given that some enumerated activities (e.g., swimming, skiing) can be organized. The court also noted that the Act's broad definition of "land" and the 1973 amendment removing the "five or more acres" requirement, along with the precedent set in Manning v. Barenz (which involved an injury in a municipal park), confirm that the Act applies to improved urban and suburban land, not just pristine natural spaces. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to immunity.
Dissenting - Katz, J., with whom Palmer, J., joins
No, the Connecticut Recreational Land Use Act should not provide immunity to municipalities in this case because the Act was intended primarily to encourage private landowners, not governmental entities, to open up new lands for public recreation. The dissenting justices argued that while the statutory definition of "owner" in § 52-557f (3) might broadly include municipalities, a deeper look into the legislative history and the Act's original purpose reveals a different intent. The Act was patterned after a model act designed to incentivize private landowners to make their property available for public recreation, thereby relieving the government of the cost and necessity of acquiring or maintaining such land. Municipalities, by contrast, already hold land open for public use; therefore, extending immunity to them does not create new recreational opportunities or provide an additional societal benefit that justifies stripping away common law duties of care. The dissent highlighted that unlike Connecticut, several other states explicitly extended their recreational use acts to public owners, implying that Connecticut's legislature did not intend such an extension. Applying the Act to municipalities imposes a high societal cost by removing caretaking responsibilities without a corresponding benefit, contrary to the Act's underlying objective. The dissent therefore disagreed with the precedent established in Manning v. Barenz and would have reversed the trial court's judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and broadens the scope of the Connecticut Recreational Land Use Act, particularly regarding municipal liability. It establishes that municipalities providing free recreational facilities, even with reasonable access restrictions and for organized team sports on improved land, are generally immune from liability for injuries. This decision reinforces municipal protection against negligence claims on public recreational properties, potentially impacting the ability of injured individuals to recover damages. While it might encourage municipalities to continue offering public recreational access without undue fear of litigation, it also reduces the incentive for them to maintain optimally safe conditions, as their common law duties of care are diminished.
