The Act limits the liability of property owners and managers when individuals enter land for recreational purposes, protecting against claims of personal injury and property loss.
The purpose of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA) is to encourage landowners to make their property available for public recreation without charging for access. RULWA limits owners’ liability for personal injury and loss of property by limiting the duty of care that owners traditionally owe to people entering their land. It provides that landowners have no duty to keep their land safe for recreational users and have no duty to warn of dangerous conditions. This immunity from liability does not protect landowners who willfully or maliciously fail to warn of dangerous conditions or who charge for admission.
The General Assembly most recently amended this 1966 law in 2018 to better protect landowners.
The 11-page guide, Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use of Land and Water Act, reviews court rulings interpreting RULWA, and its application to a wide range of scenarios.
RULWA protects public and private landowners as well as tenants, lease holders (such as hunt clubs), and other persons or organizations “in control of the premises.” RULWA protects easement holders when they control the land. When they lack control, they simply and generally are not subject to landowner-negligence liability.
The range of recreational activities covered by RULWA was widened in the 2018 amendment. RULWA now defines “recreational purpose” as “any activity undertaken or viewed for exercise, sport, education, recreation, relaxation or pleasure.” The Act goes on to state that this:
includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, recreational noncommercial aircraft operations or recreational noncommercial ultralight operations on private airstrips, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle and motorcycle riding, nature study, water skiing, water sports, cave exploration and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.
The absence of a particular activity from the list (e.g., running, birdwatching, sledding, biking) does not indicate lack of RULWA protection. Listed activities are examples of the types of activities covered. Courts have not hesitated to apply RULWA in a range of cases involving activities not explicitly listed in the Act.
On its face, RULWA applies to all land—developed and undeveloped, rural and urban. However, in 1986, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted the Act to be focused on “large” and “largely unimproved” parcels. A subsequent Supreme Court ruling blocked RULWA’s application to recreational improvements requiring regular maintenance for their safe enjoyment. A complex and inconsistent patchwork of cases followed.
In 2018, the General Assembly responded by substantially expanding the Act’s definition of “land” to mean:
land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, amenities, structures, boating access and launch ramps, bridges, fishing piers, boat docks, ramps, paths, paved or unpaved trails, hunting blinds and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty. The term shall also include areas providing access to, or parking for, lands and waters, including, but not limited to, access ramps, trails or piers for use by recreational users with disabilities. [Bold emphasis indicates text added in 2018.]
This expanded definition explicitly provides protection for a variety of human-made features that were vulnerable under older court rulings interpreting RULWA. Court decisions that followed the 2018 changes demonstrate renewed and strong RULWA protection, enabling landowners to confidently open their land to recreational users, and to offer improvements and amenities that support users’ enjoyment. (See the guide Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use of Land and Water Act for detailed discussion.)
Notwithstanding these positive developments, landowners are well advised to buttress statutory protection with active risk management. See, for example, the measures described in the guide Reducing Liability Associated with Public Access.
RULWA protects landowners from claims of all “recreational users,” without regard to whether the owner has expressly invited or permitted the user, or the broader public, to enter the property.
RULWA protection is generally not available if owners charge for admission. The 2018 amendment clarifies that the following contributions are allowed without negating RULWA protection:
Court decisions provide additional guidance about payments or fees that do not generally negate RULWA protection:
Although RULWA immunizes landowners from negligence claims, landowners remain liable for willful or malicious failure to guard or warn recreational users of a dangerous condition. Proving a willful failure to warn requires, at minimum: proof of landowner’s actual knowledge (as distinguished from things that the landowner should have known) of the dangerous condition; that the condition would not be obvious to visitors; and that the failure to warn or take corrective action was willful, as opposed to merely negligent.
While courts have not had occasion to clarify how “willfulness” can be established under RULWA, decisions have suggested that an ongoing failure by a landowner to take action after learning of prior injuries may be sufficient to demonstrate willfulness. And vice versa: evidence of a landowner’s good faith efforts to protect or warn can undercut an allegation of willful failure.
Pennsylvania's Tort Claims Act and Sovereign Immunity Act shield municipalities and Commonwealth agencies from claims of willful misconduct. Liability may only be imposed upon these entities for their negligent acts, and then, only within specifically defined exceptions to immunity. Courts have repeatedly held that where a RULWA protects a government landowner from negligence claim, these acts effectively close RULWA’s loophole for willful conduct—resulting in total immunity.
The reality is anyone can be sued for anything. However, courts can promptly dismiss claims that lack legal merit. Statutory immunities, like RULWA, greatly increase the odds that a court will dismiss a claim associated with recreational use of land. And for those claims not dismissed, RULWA substantially boosts the likelihood of a landowner-friendly outcome. All of this disincentivizes the filing of claims in the first place. RULWA enables landowners to confidently invite or permit recreational use, knowing that their exposure for liability is quite limited.
