In February I wrote about the risks inherent in leased hunting properties. AA&B reader Curt McClure called my attention to another interesting case from Louisiana on the same subject with a twist: A son sued his father for injuries while on the father's property to hunt.

Louisiana established a statute encouraging the use of rural land for hunting and other recreational purposes by limiting the duty element of the tort of negligence to protect the property owners who allow their properties to be used for recreational purposes.
If your client wishes to lease out his property for recreational purposes, it is important to determine whether the state has protective statutes like the Louisiana statutes that are the point of Cooper v. Cooper (786 So.2d 240 [La.App. Cir.2 05/09/2001]).
Son versus father
David F. Cooper III owned a 2,500-acre tract of land in Madison Parish, La., with 1,000 acres in row-crop land leased to Gerald Collins. Approximately 1,245 acres was recreational property “to be sold for hunting or as recreational use.”
On Oct. 15, 1997, while driving his truck around the property, his son, John David Cooper, saw hired men unloading a tower stand from a trailer attached to a vehicle owned by one of the employees, Samuel K. Smith. John David offered to help the men. As the four men tried to get the stand upright, the deer stand fell on John David, causing injuries to his shoulder, arm, neck and knee.
On Oct. 5, 1998, John David and his wife Julie filed suit against David F. Cooper III, and his insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.; Samuel K. Smith, one of the workers who owned the vehicle pulling the trailer that was carrying the deer stand; Smith's automobile liability insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.; and John David's UN/UIM, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.
The father and his insurer presented a defense based upon Louisiana statutes relating to the recreational use of land. The statute provided, in part:
An owner, lessee, or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, sightseeing or boating or to give warning of any hazardous conditions, use of, structure or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purposes [? 2791]. The Court of Appeal stated the goal of the statute is “to encourage owners of land to make land and water area available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes.”
To determine if the statutes apply to protect the defendant landowner, the court must apply the following tests:

• The land where the injury occurs must be undeveloped, nonresidential and rural or semi-rural.
• The injury itself must be the result of a recreation that can be pursued in the “true outdoors.”
• The injury-causing instrumentality must be of the type normally encountered in the “true outdoors” and not of the type usually found in someone's back yard.

In reaching its decision that neither the father nor his insurer was liable for the son's injury, the Court of Appeal referred to Lewis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 654 So. 2d 883 (La. App. 4th Cir. 04/26/95) where the same court held that a boater who was injured when he fell through a pier at a private fishing camp could not recover from the property owner.
The boater had been waterskiing when his boat's steering mechanism broke, causing them to paddle to the pier. The defendant camp owner claimed immunity under the recreational use statutes and moved for summary judgment.

The plaintiff argued that he was not at the defendant's camp for recreational purposes, and therefore, the immunity provisions did not apply. Granting the defendant's motion, the district court stated that “[t]he fact that the boat experienced mechanical problems did not change the nature of the day's activities.” The court of appeal agreed and affirmed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the recreational use statutes are applicable in this case. John David Cooper entered the premises on the date of the accident to hunt deer and the work of putting up the deer stand was incidental to such entry.
In addition and independently, John David's act of putting up the deer stand was done in preparation for hunting. Accordingly, because John David Cooper was on the property for recreational purposes and because the deliberate, willful or malicious injury/act/failure to act sections of the statutes are inapplicable, defendants are entitled to statutory immunity under these provisions. Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is a California attorney specializing in expert witness testimony and consulting with plaintiffs and defendants on insurance coverage and claims handling. He founded Zalma Insurance Consultants in 2001 and serves as its senior consultant. Contact the author at [email protected].