A woman frequently visited a high school to use its running track. On one occasion she took a different route, one that required her to step down from the bleachers onto the track. She did not accurately perceive the rise that separated the bleachers from the track surface. As she took the step, she fell and injured her ankle. The woman sued the school district.
The school district moved for summary, arguing that the school district is immune under the recreational use immunity statute. The trial court dismissed the personal injury case. The woman appealed.
To be immune under the recreational use immunity statute, the landowner must establish that the use (1) was open to members of the public (2) for recreational purposes and that (3) no fee of any kind was charged.
Land is no longer open to the public if the landowner restricts access by discriminating against the user based on personal traits, such as religious affiliation. The track in question was open to “Tukwila citizens.” The facility’s main entrance gate has an access card reader. One posted sign limits access to “Authorized Card Holders Only,” and another sign states that “Tukwila citizens” may obtain an access card. The woman argued on appeal that the facilities were not open to all members of the public, and therefore the school district was not immune.
The policy restricting use of the track to cardholders was not based on a personal trait, and everyone in the Tukwila community had the same opportunity to obtain an access card. Tukwila citizens have to provide identification and complete a two-page application. Access cards are issued the same day. One employee testified that in her 12 years working for the District, she has never denied an application.
The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the property was not open to the public.
Elizabeth also argued that the District charged a fee, and therefore was not immune under the recreational use immunity statute. The district did occasionally charge fees for organizations and groups to use all aspects of the athletic facilities, including the track, artificial turf, announcer, control booth, custodian, field supervisor, police security, and scoreboard.
The district did not charge Olson a fee to use the running track. Access cards were free of charge. For use of the track only, the District had charged fees on but seven occasions in the previous five years.
The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the district charged a fee for use of the property.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision dismissing the personal injury case.[1]
This is one of many cases that illustrate that—contrary to a commonly held opinion—a landowner and its insurance carrier are liable for injuries that occur on its land. The truth is that slip and fall injury cases are often difficult cases for the injured person to pursue.
If you have been injured on another’s property it is best to seek a fee personal injury case evaluation early.
[1] Olson v. Tukwila School District, unpublished (No. 72865-2-1 October 12, 2015).