May 2024 - Parks & Recreation - 30

LAW REVIEW
The Maryland Recreational Use Statute
(MRUS) lends protections to landowners
who allow others to use their land for
recreational purposes.
deep and unlevel gap was dangerous
because it was " not readily
apparent in this rich distracting
environment " for pedestrians and
cyclists like Wallace. During cross
examination, Deye admitted part
of the Waterfront
Promenade,
by limiting the owner's liability
toward any person who enters on
land, water, and airspace above
the land and water areas for these
purposes. "
Accordingly, under the MRUS,
landowners who allow others to
use their land for recreational
purposes incur no liability for personal
injury or property damage
arising out of recreational use.
While the MRUS precludes premises
liability for ordinary negligence,
potential liability is retained
in the MRUS for injuries incurred
by recreational users when the
landowner willfully or maliciously
fails to warn of danger or charges
for the use of the land.
The term " land " is defined in
the MRUS as " roads, water, watercourses,
private ways and buildings,
structures, and machinery
or equipment when attached to
the realty, " including " paths " and
" trails. " In 2000, the MRUS was
amended and the definition of
30 Parks & Recreation | MAY 2 0 2 4 | PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
" recreational purpose " was redefined
as " any recreational pursuit. "
In 2000, the statute was expanded
to be applicable to a " unit of local
government as an owner of land. "
Trial Court Jury Award
At trial, to establish premises liability,
Plaintiff Wallace provided the
following testimony from Sylvia
Deye, an expert in architecture and
the design of walkways:
On August 19, 2020, Deye
completed a site investigation of
the south side promenade where
Wallace fell. Deye testified that
the location where the incident
occurred is a " built environment "
and a " corridor. " She stated,
" there are multiple places along
the promenade for meeting areas
and there are benches for meeting
and gathering, but it's also a
connector between Rusty Scupper
and other parts of the City, down
to the markets. "
Deye further testified that the
called Inner Harbor Park, had been
created by the City Charter.
Following a trial, the jury determined
" the gap in question was
a hazardous condition " and " the
City had sufficient opportunity
to correct the gap in question. "
As a result, the jury found the
City liable for negligence and returned
a verdict awarding Wallace
$100,000 in damages.
The trial
court
declined
the
City's motion to overturn the jury's
verdict and enter judgment
for the Defendant City based on
MRUS immunity. In the opinion
of the trial court, at the time of
her injury, " Plaintiff was commuting
to work " and, therefore, " not
using the land for recreational or
educational purposes. " As a result,
the trial court held Plaintiff
was " not a person who entered
on the land for these purposes as
contemplated by the MRUS and,
therefore, the City is not immune
from liability under the statute. "
In so doing, the trial court further
noted: " It is of no consequence
that she might have enjoyed bicycling
to work, or even if it was the
highlight of her day. " At trial, Wallace
had testified she did not own
a car at the time of the incident.
In addition to using the bicycle for
transportation, Wallace stated she
enjoyed riding her bicycle and used
May 2024 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2024 - Parks & Recreation
