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

Louisiana established a statute encouraging the use of ruralland for hunting and other recreational purposes by limiting theduty element of the tort of negligence to protect the propertyowners who allow their properties to be used for recreationalpurposes.
If your client wishes to lease out his property for recreationalpurposes, it is important to determine whether the state hasprotective statutes like the Louisiana statutes that are the pointof Cooper v. Cooper (786 So.2d 240 [La.App. Cir.205/09/2001]).
Son versus father
David F. Cooper III owned a 2,500-acre tract of land in MadisonParish, La., with 1,000 acres in row-crop land leased to GeraldCollins. Approximately 1,245 acres was recreational property “to besold for hunting or as recreational use.”
On Oct. 15, 1997, while driving his truck around the property, hisson, John David Cooper, saw hired men unloading a tower stand froma trailer attached to a vehicle owned by one of the employees,Samuel K. Smith. John David offered to help the men. As the fourmen tried to get the stand upright, the deer stand fell on JohnDavid, causing injuries to his shoulder, arm, neck and knee.
On Oct. 5, 1998, John David and his wife Julie filed suit againstDavid F. Cooper III, and his insurer, Louisiana Farm BureauCasualty Insurance Co.; Samuel K. Smith, one of the workers whoowned the vehicle pulling the trailer that was carrying the deerstand; Smith's automobile liability insurer, Louisiana Farm BureauMutual Insurance Co.; and John David's UN/UIM, Louisiana FarmBureau Mutual Insurance Co.
The father and his insurer presented a defense based upon Louisianastatutes relating to the recreational use of land. The statuteprovided, in part:
An owner, lessee, or occupant of premises owes no duty of care tokeep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting,fishing, camping, hiking, sightseeing or boating or to give warningof any hazardous conditions, use of, structure or activities onsuch premises to persons entering for such purposes [? 2791]. TheCourt of Appeal stated the goal of the statute is “to encourageowners of land to make land and water area available to the publicfor recreational purposes by limiting their liability towardpersons entering thereon for such purposes.”
To determine if the statutes apply to protect the defendantlandowner, 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 canbe pursued in the “true outdoors.”
• The injury-causing instrumentality must be of the type normallyencountered in the “true outdoors” and not of the type usuallyfound in someone's back yard.

In reaching its decision that neither the father nor his insurerwas liable for the son's injury, the Court of Appeal referred toLewis 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 whowas injured when he fell through a pier at a private fishing campcould not recover from the property owner.
The boater had been waterskiing when his boat's steering mechanismbroke, causing them to paddle to the pier. The defendant camp ownerclaimed immunity under the recreational use statutes and moved forsummary judgment.

The plaintiff argued that he was not at the defendant's camp forrecreational purposes, and therefore, the immunity provisions didnot apply. Granting the defendant's motion, the district courtstated that “[t]he fact that the boat experienced mechanicalproblems did not change the nature of the day's activities.” Thecourt of appeal agreed and affirmed. The Court of Appeal concludedthat the recreational use statutes are applicable in this case.John David Cooper entered the premises on the date of the accidentto hunt deer and the work of putting up the deer stand wasincidental to such entry.
In addition and independently, John David's act of putting up thedeer stand was done in preparation for hunting. Accordingly,because John David Cooper was on the property for recreationalpurposes and because the deliberate, willful or maliciousinjury/act/failure to act sections of the statutes areinapplicable, defendants are entitled to statutory immunity underthese provisions. Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is a Californiaattorney specializing in expert witness testimony and consultingwith plaintiffs and defendants on insurance coverage and claimshandling. He founded Zalma Insurance Consultants in 2001 and servesas its senior consultant. Contact the author at [email protected].