New York access legislation: Senate Bill S1429


Original Post
DrV · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2013 · Points: 0

New York, like most states, has a "Recreational use statute." (GOL §9-103) The statute limits liability for land owners who let the public onto their land for recreational purposes. The statute is intended to make it less risky for land owners to open their land for public use. However, New York's statue only covers a small list of recreational activities. Climbing is not one of them. Thus New York land owners have to bear the full brunt of potential liability if they allow climbing on their land.

Bill S1429 is currently "In Committee" in the New York State Legislature. The Bill expands the recreational use statute to cover all recreational uses (including climbing).

If this bill passes it would be a huge victory for climbing access in New York. It has been proposed every year since 2009 in various forms. It seems that it has not made it past the "Committee" stage each time.

New Yorkers, Please contact your state senators and get this thing passed.

Dave22 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2016 · Points: 0

It's best to find out which committee it's in, then find the senators in that committee. If your Senator isn't on that particular committee, they'll never hear about it. In politics, there may only be 8 people making the decision on whether the full body hears the bill or not. If climbing isn't in their district they only go off of what they hear from non climbers if they get any info at all.

RichBeBe · · New York City, NY · Joined Oct 2013 · Points: 0
Dave22 wrote:It's best to find out which committee it's in, then find the senators in that committee. If your Senator isn't on that particular committee, they'll never hear about it. In politics, there may only be 8 people making the decision on whether the full body hears the bill or not. If climbing isn't in their district they only go off of what they hear from non climbers if they get any info at all.
Agreed it is in the Judiciary Committee and here is a link to the members.
https://www.nysenate.gov/committees/judiciary
RockinOut · · NY, NY · Joined May 2010 · Points: 0
Click on Aye to support the Bill

Thats the link to the amendment for the original Bill. Show you support it by clicking Aye on the right side
CRAG-list-KILLA · · Wisconsin · Joined Feb 2016 · Points: 0

Just sent out some love from WISCONSIN!

Luc-514 · · Montreal, Quebec · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 8,438

Just sent more love from a regular visitor and lover of New York climbing.

Dave22 · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2016 · Points: 0

Thanks for the find. I sent my vote and also a message supporting the bill.

t.farrell · · New York, NY · Joined Aug 2016 · Points: 0

I want to know who added caving to the original "safe" activities list. Also what is organized gleaning?

I'm confused on the justification of the bill. Toward the end it says it wouldn't affect protection from a landowner willfully failing to guard or warn against a dangerous activity. But the text of the bill states land owner has no duty to give warning of dangerous activity? I'm lost.

RockinOut · · NY, NY · Joined May 2010 · Points: 0
t.farrell wrote: I want to know who added caving to the original "safe" activities list. Also what is organized gleaning? I'm confused on the justification of the bill. Toward the end it says it wouldn't affect protection from a landowner willfully failing to guard or warn against a dangerous activity. But the text of the bill states land owner has no duty to give warning of dangerous activity? I'm lost.
Instead of caving I like the addition of "speleological activities" in the new bill.....same with rock climbing and SCUBA diving.
Gleaning is another word for harvesting- maybe mushrooms or fern fiddleheads...maybe honey from a wild honeycomb? Cant sue the landowner for the mushrooms being poisonous or the bee stings.

I think you are misreading it. It's stating the same thing twice, but in 2 different ways.

Justification first part: GOL § 9-103, commonly referred to as the Recreational Use Statute,
affords landowners immunity from liability based on a failure to keep
premises safe for entry and use by others for specific recreational
activities...
Landowners are IMMUNE from liability

Justification part last part: This bill would not change the existing protection from a landowner's willful or malicious failure to guard or to warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity. It would not apply in cases where a fee is paid for any recreational use.
Even if they are "negligent" or even willffully ignore notify public of dangers they are still immune. Essentially a land owner can say "Yea, I knew that rock was loose on that cliff." and still not be liable.
David Kerkeslager · · Brooklyn, NY · Joined Jan 2017 · Points: 30
t.farrell wrote:Also what is organized gleaning?
It's defined in AGM § 71-y:

5. "Organized gleaning" means the harvest of an agricultural crop that has been donated by an owner, lessee, or occupant of premises or occupant of a farm by persons who are sponsored by a charitable not-for-profit organization.
t.farrell · · New York, NY · Joined Aug 2016 · Points: 0
RockinOut wrote: Justification first part: GOL § 9-103, commonly referred to as the Recreational Use Statute, affords landowners immunity from liability based on a failure to keep premises safe for entry and use by others for specific recreational activities... Landowners are IMMUNE from liability Justification part last part: This bill would not change the existing protection from a landowner's willful or malicious failure to guard or to warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.
Oh I read it as the public would still be protected from a negligent landowner
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Post a Reply

Log In to Reply