RAVEN RUN — A Lost Creek resident spoke to the Municipal Authority of the Borough of Shenandoah board about options to allow hunting and fishing permits to be issued on authority land at Friday’s meeting.
William O’Donnell, a former state Game Commission deputy for 10 years, said the concerns by the board due to liability issues could be addressed by the state’s Recreational Use of Land and Water Act.
“I have some information here that might be helpful to the board in understanding what benefits they can get at no cost to the board,” O’Donnell said. “I’ve been hunting this land for at least 55 years.”
“So you’re opposed to us not allowing hunters to be on the land?” authority solicitor Joseph Nahas asked.
“Hunters, fishermen, hikers, any type of recreational use of the land. Berry pickers. Mushroom pickers,” O’Donnell said. “No trespassing is no trespassing.”
“So you’re opposed to having the land no trespassing,” Nahas said.
“Yes, sir, on all the water company properties,” O’Donnell said.
“It was the reservation of the insurance company who stated to us that if there is an injury on the property, if someone drowned in that lake, then, of course, we would be responsible,” Nahas said.
At the April special meeting, the MABS board voted to deny the use on all authority-owned property for insurance liability concerns and watershed protection. The topic of authority land accessibility was discussed at length at the board’s special meeting in March on whether to issue fishing permits for the reservoirs in Union Township. The authority issued permits at no charge to residents within the authority’s service area.
Issuing the permits raised the issue of potential insurance liability for anyone using the properties, with or without permission. After a lengthy discussion, the matter was tabled and forwarded to Nahas for his review. Nahas said the liability insurance underwriter was contacted and he was told that a liability claim could increase the premium cost.
O’Donnell provided all board members with a two-page summary of the RULWA prepared by attorney Debra Wolf Goldstein of the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association. According to the association’s website, the RULWA “limits landowners’ liability for personal injury or property damage if they make their land available to the public for recreation. The purpose of the law is to encourage landowners to allow hikers, fishermen and other recreational users onto their properties by limiting the traditional duty of care that landowners owe to entrants upon their land. So long as no entrance or use fee is charged, the act provides that landowners do not have to keep their land safe for recreational users and have no duty to warn of dangerous conditions. This immunity from liability does not protect landowners who willfully or maliciously fail to warn of dangerous conditions.”
O’Donnell said the game commission also has a forest game program that would have commission officers to patrol the areas registered in the game program.
“There are a lot of exemptions from liability,” O’Donnell said. “The game commission, state forestry, department of parks, they’re protected under this law.”
“Just because there are protections granted under this act, it does not preclude someone from suing this authority,” Nahas said.
“Absolutely. Anybody can sue anybody at any time,” O’Donnell said, but the act would protect the authority.
Referring to the information provided by O’Donnell, board member Joseph Rosselli said, “There are key words in there. Courts weigh several factors to decide whether the land where the injury occurred has been altered.’ So, there are things in here that opens up (a liability).”
“This has to be researched,” Nahas said. “We can be going back and forth, but I’ll gladly do the research.”
“We are in compliance with the insurance company right now,” Donald E. Segal, board secretary/treasurer, said. “We are reviewing everything.”
The issue was tabled for further review by board Chairwoman Donna Gawrylik.
After the meeting, O’Donnell said the game commission has millions of acres under its control.
“If there was the case where a major threat of a liability, the game commission would have to post all of their land,” O’Donnell said. “There is a good protection here (with RULWA).”
O’Donnell spoke of an incident several years ago where a hunter who was given permission to hunt on a farmer’s property fired a shot and accidentally hit another person.
“Of course, the lawsuit came that they wanted to sue the landowner and the hunter, but they couldn’t sue the landowner because he was protected under that Recreational Use of Land and Water Act. The court ruled against the hunter for firing a careless and negligent shot,” he said.