an official NEW HAMPSHIRE government website
(The complete study, including referenced appendices, is available at the State Library, 20 Park St, Concord, NH , 271-2144 or at the House Clerk's Office, NH State House, Main St, Concord, 271-2548.)
Conclusion
After having investigated the issues raised in HB 244 regarding the liability of landowners when persons are injured on the landowner's property when engaged in recreational pursuits, the Committee has unanimously concluded that existing statutes fully and adequately protect landowners from suit. To add any additional statutes regarding the subject would be duplicitous.
This bill was spawned, in part, by [landowners] of Dalton and Milford, New Hampshire, when their "Letter to the Editor" appeared in several north country newspapers. (Their letter is included in this report as Appendix "G.") The [landowner's] letter raises many issues, most of which the Committee found to not be relevant. Paragraph seven of the letter does raise a fair issue - that being of machines that leave the trail. If the operators are consequently injured in a mishap, the landowner is still indemnified by the four strong statutes previously discussed in this report, plus RSA 507:15, the frivolous actions statute which should deter a frivolous suit (see Appendix "H").
Apparently, the [landowners] own a large tract of land in the Town of Dalton, intersected by a Class 6 town road on which a state snowmobile trail was located. The [landowners] attempted to close the road. Since they did not own the land upon which the trail was located, it is difficult to understand their intense interest in the landowner liability issue.
In an attempt to keep the trail in town with the associated economic advantage of servicing snowmobiles, the town voted at the 2003 Town Meeting to upgrade the road to a Class 5 road, and have made provisions for the trail to be located beside it.
In January 2003, the Department of Insurance contacted twenty of the insurance companies that write the majority of the homeowner policies in the State to determine if they would cancel homeowner policies if the homeowners allowed snowmobile trails on their properties. Of the 20 companies, seventeen replied, and sixteen of them stated that they would provide homeowner coverage. These companies stated that they were aware of both the immunities provided by the recreational use statutes as well as the insurance coverage provided by the Department of Resources and Economic Development. As a result, there does not appear to be an issue with the homeowner insurance industry allowing snowmobile trails on their policyholders' properties (see Appendix "I").
The Committee members sincerely respect the anxiety experienced by participating landowners and can understand what precipitated that increased anxiety, particularly in the northern part of the State. We feel that if landowners are made aware of the protections afforded by existing statutes, participating landowners can be made comfortable once again with a State program which has operated well since 1981.
The New Hampshire Snowmobile Association, Department of Resources and Economic Development, the Timberland Owners Association, and the Society for Protection of New Hampshire Forests have all pledged to utilize their periodic publications to publicize the results of this study.
There are no laws, written or possible, to prevent litigation. The success of that litigation is minimal in the opinion of this Committee, considering the subject matter contained herein. It is the view of the Committee that the status quo is sufficient at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Rep. Henry P. Mock
Committee Chairman
See Recreational Use Statutes