HB 1195 became WA State law last year

[assmonkey]

Assmonkey was poking around on this site (pretty cool site, I might add) and found that HB 1195 (text here) was passed into law last year. I did a brief search of cc.com and didn't find any posts related to this bill. Does anyone know what are the ramifications of this new amendment to the law? It appears that this absolves private landowners of any liability incurred by rock climbers on their property. It even specifically uses the language, "fixed anchors," and the fact that fixed anchors will no longer be considered an "attractive nuisance."

 

Assmonkey is neither lawyer nor politician (I actually work for a living) but I wonder why, a) this was submitted in the first place by a R from Olympia and b) why it was passed with little fanfare or protest (House passed with unanimous vote, Senate passed with 2 Nays). I think it is a great development for Washington climbers, it should open up for development a lot of rock that is on private property by freeing landowners from liability issues.

 

But, the conspiracy theorist in assmonkey can't help but wonder, what does The Honorable Jerome Delvin stand to gain from championing this change in the law? Is he simply a climber who wants to open up more climbing opportunities in Washington? (If that's the case, Prost.) Or is there some nefarious business plan in the works to capitalize off of this new law, similar to the proposal that has been talked about around Smith Rock State Park for years. (As an historical aside, the Oregon politician that unsuccessfully--so far, anyway--tried to rezone the farmland around Terrebonne so that he could build a giant golf course/spa retreat in the shadow of Monkey Face also happens to be a land owner in the area and stands to gain quite a bit from the deal, hence my suspicion of the movtives behind HB 1195. And if that info about SRSP is out of date, please update assmonkey.)

 

At the very least perhaps we will see more "Pay to climb" areas around the state similar to Carver Bluff near Portland, Oregon. Interestingly, the text of the new law allows property owners to charge $25 to people--even volunteers--who access their land. Maybe that's the jig? Property owners around the state who own land that was heretofor deemed 'useless' because of the big rocky cliffs will now be able to generate revenue off of climbers by charging access fees--on an annual, monthly or even daily basis--to get on the cliffs? If I read the text correctly landowners will be able to charge access fees and be absolved of any responsibility for the safety of the routes they are charging climbers to access.

 

Thoughts? Does the Access Fund have an opinion on this?

[marylou]

I believe you can thank Andy Fitz for this outstanding piece of legislation.

[sobo]

...But, the conspiracy theorist in assmonkey can't help but wonder, what does The Honorable Jerome Delvin stand to gain from championing this change in the law? Is he simply a climber who wants to open up more climbing opportunities in Washington?...

 

...If I read the text correctly landowners will be able to charge access fees and be absolved of any responsibility for the safety of the routes they are charging climbers to access.

 

I know Jerome personally (and it's "Devlin", not "Delvin"), although I haven't seen much of him locally since he got really active in politics a few years back. He is a climber and high altitude mountaineer. He simply wants to open up more climbing opportunities in Washington. Be glad.

 

Secondly, precedent/tort holds that you cannot charge a fee and be absolved of responsibility for injuries/death on private property. The two are mututally exclusive propositions (correct me if wrong, TLG, mattp, specialed, others). Charge a fee, accept responsibility. Free access, no liability.

 

And lastly, just in case if you didn't know, Andy Fitz is the immediate past Director of the Access Fund. Be glad for him, too.

[Stefan]

We did talk about this piece of legislation on this website last year. Where you say? I can't find it.

 

The legislation was passed to allow climbing on private property without landowners assuming the risk of any lawsuits. It was a way of opening up the land for nonmotorized users.

 

I do not recall seeing $25 charge per access. I do remember something that if the landowner did charge then they would be assuming the risk of a lawsuit.

[Alex]

On a related note, the existence of this bill is what Jason Martin and I hope will convince certain landowners to allow at least limited access to ice climbs on their private property.

 

My recent trip to Europe, where access issues are a real concern in the Maltatal region of Carinthia, has given me some good ideas about how to approach this issue.

 

We have posted an interim Access page that will detail our progress over the years.

 

http://www.wastateice.net/access.aspx

[sobo]

We did talk about this piece of legislation on this website last year. Where you say? I can't find it.

 

The legislation was passed to allow climbing on private property without landowners assuming the risk of any lawsuits. It was a way of opening up the land for nonmotorized users.

 

I do not recall seeing $25 charge per access. I do remember something that if the landowner did charge then they would be assuming the risk of a lawsuit.

 

I don't recall it being discussed here (but I don't spend all day on this board, usually ), but it was discussed at length on the FCCC Yahoo group (Frenchman Coulee Climber's Coalition) after some actions by Bill Robins (RIP) regarding access to the ice climbs on the north wall of Frenchman's Coulee. Perhaps the archives of that group could shed some (local) light on the issue.

[Stefan]

Found it. Here is where we did a little discussion. It was a little discussion.

 

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB1&Number=179690&Forum=All_Forums&Words="Rainier%20Timber%20Company"&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=179690&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=0&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post179690

[assmonkey]

I know Jerome personally (and it's "Devlin", not "Delvin"),

 

No offense intended, I actually cut and pasted from here.

 

He is a climber and high altitude mountaineer. He simply wants to open up more climbing opportunities in Washington. Be glad.

 

I am very glad. I think this frickin' rocks. Here's to Rep. Delvin and Andy Fitz:

 

Thank you! Great to see the process working!

[ketch]

I think this one worked out well. I had been "negotiating" with some of the local prop owners that were a little hesitant. When I was able to produce a copy of the law, they were cool with me exploring and possibly developing. Good on that, I havn't found any good rock yet

 

...I do not recall seeing $25 charge per access. I do remember something that if the landowner did charge then they would be assuming the risk of a lawsuit.

 

It's all good. The way the law reads the owners are not to charge a fee of any kind. If the property use is for gathering and removing firewood they may charge a $25 admin fee. I guess if a garden a new route I have to leave all the wood at the base.

[richard_noggin]

Cool, more climbing on private land

DICK

[sobo]

I know Jerome personally (and it's "Devlin", not "Delvin"),

 

No offense intended, I actually cut and pasted from here.

 

None taken, but it is my bad all the same. I know a Devlin and a Delvin, both in politics. You are correct, it is Jerome Delvin (who I still do know and is the same guy who sponsored the legislation). I just confused his name with Tom Devlin, erstwhile councilman from Quincy.

 

Apologies humbly offered.

[colt45]

From HB 1195:

 

{+ A fixed anchor used in rock climbing and put in place by someone other than a landowner is not a known dangerous artificial latent condition and a landowner under subsection (1) of this section shall not be liable for unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of such an anchor. +}

 

It seems strange that a landowner apparently WOULD be held liable for injuries if the landowner placed the fixed protection him/herself. Does this mean, in general, that the person placing any bolt or anchor could get sued??

[Off_White]

Hmmm, and as a landowner who has placed fixed protection, am I liable?

[sobo]

Hmmm, and as a landowner who has placed fixed protection, am I liable?

 

That might be worth an email to Rep. Delvin hisself. Let us know what he sez, eh?

[Rodchester]

That in't what it says. It simply says that a landowner that does not set anchors is exempt from any liability. The inverse is not automtically true. So a landowner that does set anchors is not covered by this statute.

 

For a landowner that does, you would have to look to other law, likley common law, to se if liability is possible. I'd bet it COULD fit into the common law theory of attractive nuisance.

[andyf]

Good God, it’s been such a long time since I posted that I forgot my password and had to create a new identity!

 

HB 1195, which became law in 2003, amended an existing Washington statute that immunizes landowners (public and private) who don’t charge a fee for using their land from liability related to accidents involving recreational users, unless the accident is caused by “known dangerous artificial latent condition" for which the landowner has failed to post a conspicuous warning. So, the idea is to encourage landowners to let people recreate on their land by immunizing them from liability, unless there’s some hidden manmade deathtrap the landowner knows about but doesn’t warn about.

 

The amendment added "rock climbing" to the list of recreational activities mentioned in the statute, although it would have been pretty hard to argue that climbing didn’t already fit within the scope of the statute. The more significant change is new language providing that “A fixed anchor used in rock climbing and put in place by someone other than a landowner is not a known dangerous artificial latent condition and a landowner…shall not be liable for unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of such an anchor.” There’s also new language stating that “By providing that a landowner shall not be liable for any unintentional injuries arising from the condition or use of a fixed anchor used in rock climbing, the legislature recognizes that such fixed anchors are recreational equipment used by climbers for which a landowner has no duty of care.” This means that unless they place the bolts (or fixed pins or whatever) themselves, landowners don’t need to worry about whether the third bolt on Route X is a time bomb that someone might later argue is a “known dangerous artificial latent condition.” (Concern over this issue, among other things, led to a landowner closing the Winter Walk Wall at Frenchman Coulee a few years ago.)

 

So here’s how it all happened:

 

There’s a small toprope crag near the Tri-Cities that was closed by Walla Walla County awhile back due to alleged liability concerns. (A lot of people think the closure had more to do with a neighbor who didn’t like climbers looking into his back yard.) A couple of Tri-City climbers got in touch with their local representative, Jerome Delvin, who dropped a bill to add “rock climbing” to the list of activities mentioned in the recreational use immunity statute.

 

I got wind of this and showed up to testify at a hearing before the House committee considering the bill. I supported Rep. Delvin’s change, but added that the legislature should also make it clear that a landowner shouldn’t be liable for fixed anchors placed by climbers. I testified that fixed anchors were part of a climber's recreational equipment, just like a cyclist's bike or a hunter's gun. It just so happens that unlike a bike or a gun, in order to be useful, a fixed anchor has to be left in place.

 

Explaining climbing to a bunch of legislators in the limited time of a hearing was interesting. I brought some visual aids to help out (a Friend to explain removable pro and a bolt w/ hanger to explain fixed pro). Several legislators got hung up on the idea that climbers would trust their lives to fixed protection placed by someone else. By the end I got my point across. After I testified, a committee staff person got in touch with me to work on putting my ideas into the bill.

 

The new language in the statute is pretty much mine, except the part about the language not applying to a landowner who places fixed anchors him or herself. The committee staffer felt strongly that the legislature shouldn’t immunize a landowner who creates the condition that might lead to an accident. Sorry about that, Off White!

 

I think this amendment is a great step in reducing landowner liability concerns. I’ve had one success story already as a result of the law.

 

Andy Fitz

Washington Regional Coordinator, The Access Fund

 

PS: I'm a volunteer looking for help!