March 2012 - Parks & Recreation - 34

law review continued from page 31

Avenue to the portion of the Cliff Walk
that runs along the Society's property-
an area known as Ochre Point. The
plaintiffs allege that there were no signs
warning of the Cliff Walk's potential
hazards at either The Breakers or the
Shepard Avenue entrance.
According to plaintiffs, after they

reached the paved portion of the Cliff
Walk, the couple noticed a " beaten
path, " which they assumed would
guide them toward the water. Simcha
took the lead and proceeded down the
path with Sarah close behind. Suddenly,
the ground beneath Simcha's feet gave
way and he plummeted approximately

OUTDOOR LIVING...
For Kids

Our whimsical and durable interactive themed play
sculptures make Cemrock playgrounds one of a kind.
Whether it's a giant lizard, puppy dog, or life-size
pirate ship, we create high quality, detailed pieces
that no one else compares to. Everything we do is
custom so our clients are free to let their imaginations
soar. From design to installation Cemrock can help...
every step of the way.
See more at: cemrock.com
or email us at: info@ cemrock.com

twenty-nine feet to the rocks below. His
injuries were catastrophic; he suffered a
severe spinal cord injury that rendered
him a quadriplegic.

Plaintiff Berman alleged that the defendant City of Newport had " negligently caused Simcha's injuries by failing to
properly inspect, maintain, and repair the
Cliff Walk. " Moreover, plaintiffs alleged
that the City knew of premise defects
on the Cliff Walk and " failed to guard or
warn against them. "
The trial court granted the City's motion for summary judgment based upon
immunity for liability under the Rhode Island's RUS. Berman appealed.

Discovered Peril
As cited by the state supreme court, in
pertinent part, the state recreational use
statute (RUS) provided as follows:
[A]n owner of land who either directly
or indirectly invites or permits without
charge any person to use that property
for recreational purposes does not
thereby:
(1) Extend any assurance that the
premises are safe for any purpose;
(2) Confer upon that person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to
whom a duty of care is owed; nor
(3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to any person
or property caused by an act of omission of that person...
(a) Nothing in this chapter limits in
any way any liability which, but for this
chapter, otherwise exists: (1) For the
willful or malicious failure to guard or
warn against a dangerous condition,
use, structure, or activity after discovering the user's peril...

Accordingly, under the RUS, the court
found " landowners who open their land
for recreational activities have no duty to
the public other than to refrain from willful or wanton conduct " (i.e., the limited
legal duty traditionally owed to trespassers). Further, the court noted that the RUS
had been amended in 1996 to expand
the term " owners " to include the state
and its municipalities. As characterized
by the state supreme court, the exception to public landowner immunity under

32 Parks & Recreation M A R C H

2 0 1 2 w w w . N R P A . O R G

March 2012 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of March 2012 - Parks & Recreation