LAS VEGAS (Legal Newsline) - A law protecting property owners against lawsuits stemming from “recreational activities” shields a Nevada city from a lawsuit filed by a woman who tripped over the edge of a protective mat under a children’s slide and broke her leg in multiple places.
Nevada statute 41.510 bars lawsuits by people “participating in any recreational activity” on private or public land. In 1995 the Nevada Supreme Court decided in Boland v. Nevada Rock & Sand that while the statute didn’t specify it, legislators must have meant to limit immunity to “rural, semi-rural, or nonresidential” property.
Legislators disagreed and that same year amended the law to apply to “any premises.” They also expanded the specific examples of covered uses from nine to 20.
That change in statutory language doomed a lawsuit by Kathryn Abbott, who sued the City of Henderson for injuries she said she received while helping her child on a slide in Vivaldi Park. Abbott claimed the rubber surface under the slide, designed to protect children against injuries, should have had beveled edges to prevent people from tripping over it.
Henderson argued it had absolute immunity under 41.510, which states property owners have no duty to protect people against hazards while they are engaging in recreational activity, absent “willful or malicious” behavior. A trial court agreed and dismissed Abbott’s suit, but a court of appeals reversed. Henderson appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which reversed again and dismissed Abbott’s suit in a Jan. 25 decision by Justice Linda Marie Bell.
Abbott argued the premises liability law should apply only to undeveloped land, but that “is belied by the plain language of the statute, which expressly contemplates immunity for injuries caused by structures,” the court said. The court also rejected the argument Abbott wasn’t engaged in recreational activity, citing the non-exclusive list of examples the legislature provided in the statute.
“We are convinced walking and assisting a child playing on a playground is similar to picnicking, hiking, riding a bicycle, and crossing over public land,” the court said.
Finally, the court dismissed the claim the city could be accused of willful or malicious behavior, noting workers maintain the park daily and there was no evidence anyone else had tripped over the protective mat in the seven years it had been in place.