Rieders Travis Law Firm Logo

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

CALL FOR A FREE CONSULT

(570) 323-8711

    GET HELP NOW - email us


    Protection For Those Who Don’t Need It?

    In 1965 Pennsylvania passed a law protecting landowners from lawsuits who make land and water areas available to the public for recreational uses. The Act was narrow and has accomplished its purpose by encouraging recreational use of properties that might not otherwise have been available to the public.

    The Pennsylvania legislature, through some of its less enlightened members, is now involved in an effort to expand that Bill far beyond any necessary purpose. The proposal is to exempt from responsibility an owner of land regardless of where the damaged person or property is located. It is so broad that it encourages the most reckless sort of behavior.

    Supposing, for example, the landowner permits someone to launch fireworks from his land. Somebody off the land may be seriously injured or have their home burned down and they would be granted immunity.

    Granting immunity to a landowner who invites hunters on his land, without charge, is to encourage use of privately owned land for hunting. What is the purpose of granting landowner immunity for any recreational activity which takes place on his land regardless of who or what is hurt off the land?

    The amendments are so broad that they would protect people from lawsuits “wherever located.” “Land” is also broadly defined not only encompassing unimproved features, but also would extend to bridges, launching ramps, and any area provided to users including parking areas. The law was never intended to give a “get out of jail free card” to anyone, under any circumstances and in any location.

    The law would also broaden the immunity to improved or unimproved areas regardless of whether located in a rural or urban area. This law would therefore protect wrongdoers in the crowded urban environment.

    The law also would extend hurdles to legitimate claims in connection with snowmobiling, all-terrain use and motorcycling riding, all of which can be very dangerous activities.

    The only purpose of this law can be to protect people who are neglectful and cause harm to others. A court would be empowered, under the amendment to the law, to award attorney’s fees and direct costs to any owner, lessee, manager or holder of an easement or occupant of real property who is found not to be liable. However, attorney’s fees are not awarded to victims where there is liability for neglect, regardless of how willful or intentional.

    This proposed expansion of the law is unfair, unbalanced, and will encourage bad behavior. It will protect people who own land and water resources who engage in the most dangerous sort of activities. There is no reason for this legislation, except to line the pockets of those who least need that protection. The proposed changes to the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act will encourage reckless and dangerous behavior without any corresponding good to be done for the public.

    Clifford A. Rieders, Esquire
    Rieders, Travis, Humphrey,
    Waters & Dohrmann
    161 West Third Street
    Williamsport , PA 17701
    (570) 323-8711 (telephone)
    (570) 323-4192 (facsimile)

    Cliff Rieders, who practices law in Williamsport, is Past President of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association and a member of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority. None of the opinions expressed necessarily represent the views of these organizations.

    Attorney Cliff Rieders

    Attorney Cliff RiedersCliff Rieders is a Nationally Board Certified Trial Lawyer practicing personal injury law. A large part of his practice involves multi-district litigation, including cases related to pharmaceuticals, vitamin supplements and medical devices. He is admitted in several state and federal courts, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States. Rieders is the past regional president of the Federal Bar Association and is a life member of the distinguished American Law Institute, which promulgates proposed rules adopted by many state courts. He is a past president of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, formerly Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. As a founder of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority, he served on the Board for 15 years.

    Not only has Rieders held many highly esteemed, leadership positions, he authored legislation related to the Patient Safety Authority and the Mcare Act, which governs medical and hospital liability actions in Pennsylvania. He authored texts upon which both practitioners and judges rely, including Pennsylvania Malpractice Laws and Forms, and Financial Responsibility Law Issues in Pennsylvania, the latter governing auto and truck collisions in Pennsylvania. In addition, he wrote several books on the practice of law in Pennsylvania regarding wrongful death and survivor actions, insurance bad faith, legal malpractice claims and worker rights, among others. Rieders also serves as a resource to practitioners as a regular speaker for Celesq, an arm of the world’s largest legal publisher, Thomson Reuters West Publishing.

    As recognition of his wide range of contribution to his profession and of his dedication to protecting the rights of his clients, he received numerous awards, among them the George F. Douglas Amicus Curiae Award, the Milton D. Rosenberg Award, the B’nai B’rith Justice Award, and awards of recognition from the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers. [ Attorney Bio ]

    Our Legal Team

    AttorneyClifford A. Rieders
    Partner
    Jeffrey C. Dohrmann
    AttorneyJeffrey C. Dohrmann
    Partner
    Corey J. Mowrey
    AttorneyCorey J. Mowrey
    Associate
    Attorney John Humphrey
    AttorneyJohn M. Humphrey
    Partner
    Attorney Walter
    AttorneyC. Scott Waters
    Partner
    Pamela L. Shipman
    AttorneyPamela L. Shipman
    Associate

    RECENT ARTICLES

    • COVID-19-DEATH CASE

      Testa v. Broomall, Pa. Civil No. 21-5148-KSM (E.D. Pa. August 18, 2022) (Marston, J.)  COVID-19 death case in a nursing home.  Motion to dismiss denied.  The claim was based upon the fact that although decedent tested positive for COVID-19, she was permitted to travel out of her room to interact with other residents and to get her nails done while she was placed in isolation.  She had a “win...

    • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE-PRIVILEGE
    • DRAM SHOP ACT-PREEMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE CLAIM

    SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER