Matthews v. Elk Pioneer Days2/27/1992
for the most part typically requiring the outdoors; and are not on the whole "spectator sports," but rather activities in which the individual using the land is himself involved. The statute thus viewed, it appears to us that in the particular circumstances of the case before us . . . the Legislature did not intend the immunity provided by this statute to apply.
See also Annot., Effect of Statute Limiting Landowner's Liability for Personal Injury to Recreational User, 47 A.L.R.4th 262 (1986).
The rule of ejusdem generis is well recognized in Washington. See Southwest Wash. Chapter, Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Pierce Cy., 100 Wash. 2d 109, 116, 667 P.2d 1092 (1983); Kringel v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 45 Wash. App. 462, 726 P.2d 58 (1986). Kringel, at 465, states: " eneral terms appearing in a statute in connection with specific terms are to be given meaning and effect only to the extent that the general terms suggest items similar to those designated by the specific terms." Here, the question is whether festival activities are similar to the specific examples of outdoor recreation set forth in RCW 4.24.210. Those examples are "the cutting, gathering, and removing of firewood", "hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, swimming, hiking, bicycling, the riding of horses or other animals, clam digging, pleasure driving of off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles, boating, nature study, winter or water sports", and "viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites . . .".
As in Villanova, the common feature of the examples listed in RCW 4.24.210 is that they are the types of activities that require the outdoors. Also, with the exception of "viewing or enjoying historical, archeological, scenic, or scientific sites . . .", the examples are of activities which are physical in nature and require the active involvement of the person using the land. Festival activities of the sort offered by the Committee here -- entertainment, competitions, demonstrations -- do not require either active involvement or the outdoors. They may be held indoors or out, depending on the time of year and the facilities available.
In addition, we note the trend in the law is toward abrogation of many of the statutory and common law immunities for negligence. See, e.g., Freehe v. Freehe, 81 Wash. 2d 183, 500 P.2d 771 (1972) (abrogating interspousal immunity), overruled on other grounds in In re Marriage of Brown, 100 Wash. 2d 729, 731, 675 P.2d 1207 (1984); Friend v. Cove Methodist Church, Inc., 65 Wash. 2d 174, 396 P.2d 546 (1964) (abrogating charitable immunity); RCW 4.92.090 and 4.96.010 (abrogating sovereign immunity). The cited authority demonstrates our society generally assumes persons and entities should be accountable for their negligence. Otherwise, the burden falls on the injured person and upon society as a whole in the form of paying for public services that the injured person may require. As a consequence, the immunities which remain should be strictly construed and limited so that only that immunity which is necessary to serve the particular societal interest involved is recognized. Here, the purpose of RCW 4.24.200-.210 that more land be made available to the public for outdoor recreation is exceeded by protecting landowners from liability to persons who come on their property for activities which can be held either out
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|