TIMOTHY J. FARNHAM v. AARON L. KITTINGER, ET AL., NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY, ET AL.,
STEPHEN A. COBB v. AARON L. KITTINGER, ET AL., NORFOLK & WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY, ET AL.,
83 N.Y.2d 520, 611 N.Y.S.2d 790, 634 N.E.2d 162 (1994).
March 30, 1994
4 No. 44 (1994 NY Int. 057)
Decided March 30, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
BELLACOSA, J.:
General Obligations Law §9-103 cloaks landowners with a special
immunity against the usual duty to keep designated open spaces
reasonably safe for persons who enter to recreate. The key
prerequisite favors owners as against users who enter places to engage
in statutorily enumerated recreational activities, including by
specified motorized vehicle operation. The complementary goals of the
statute are to encourage landowners to leave and allow their open
lands to be accessible to recreators, the inducement being the special
immunity; and to correspondingly withdraw from recreators, as a quid
pro quo, their usual right to sue an owner for injuries suffered from
failure to keep a place reasonably safe.
In this case, plaintiffs were passengers in a four-wheel drive,
multipurpose vehicle capable of recreational off-road use. They drove
onto defendants' property at night purportedly to find a private place
to relieve themselves. We conclude that, in this case, factual aspects
may be present concerning the recreational intent of the
plaintiffs-users precluding summary judgment to defendants. Thus, the
order of the Appellate Division granting summary judgment to
defendants Penn Central Corporation, Norfolk & Western Railway
Company, and the Penndel Company, dismissing the complaints based on
the statutory immunity should be reversed and the case remitted for
further proceedings.
I.
In Chautauqua County, within the Town of Hanover, New York, a cleared
right-of-way or access road owned by defendant Penn Central runs
SNIPPETS:
TIMOTHY J. FARNHAM v. AARON L. KITTINGER, ET AL., NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY
General Obligations Law §9-103 cloaks landowners with a special immunity against the usual
The key prerequisite favors owners as against users who enter places to engage in statutorily
The complementary goals of the statute are to encourage landowners to leave and allow their
We conclude that, in this case, factual aspects may be present concerning the recreational
Thus, the order of the Appellate Division granting summary judgment to defendants Penn
In Chautauqua County, within the Town of Hanover, New York, a cleared right-of-way or access
Norfolk & Western utilizes Penn Central's right-of- way to access its active rail line and
the two railroad lines crossed Dead Creek on supporting steel bridges a few feet apart and
Plaintiffs Farnham and Cobb, along with driver-defendant Kittinger, decided to enter the
Supreme Court rejected their defense in a detailed interpretation of Iannotti v Consolidated
Supreme Court agreed with plaintiffs' contention that they were not engaged in "motorized
The Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment in favor of the property
This Court granted leave to appeal and we now reverse the order of the Appellate Division,
We conclude that off-road operation of a non-inherently recreational, multipurposed motor
Such an extended view would grant landowners immunity farther than the words and intent of
These features strike the balance that the Legislature intended to allow or encourage more
Liability against owners is foreclosed in these prescribed recreational instances by
We believe that motorized vehicles which are inherently recreational, like motorcycles,
persons pulling off the road in such non-inherently recreational vehicles simply for personal
It explicitly retains exposure to liability for willful or malicious failure to warn against
|
