Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/155380_47_01.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Otto v. Inn at Watervale, Inc.</em>, No. 155380</a>, the Michigan Supreme Court has granted the Inn's application for leave to appeal the question of whether a child's play on the beach constituted “other outdoor recreational use” of the Inn's land under the Recreational Land Use Act, MCL 324.73301(1).&nbsp;

contentpilot/introduction

While vacationing near Lake Michigan,&nbsp;Bailey Ann Marie Noble and her friend's family drove to the Inn at Watervale to spend the day at beach.&nbsp; The adults were lounging with books and Bailey and her friend were building sandcastles and splashing around in the water when Bailey suddenly began screaming.&nbsp; One of the adults noticed that Bailey had inadvertently stepped in hot coals in an active fire pit that had been covered with sand.&nbsp; Bailey sustained second and third degree burns to her left foot.&nbsp;

core/paragraph

Kerri Hunter Otto, as next of friend of Bailey, sued the Inn for a single count of negligence.&nbsp; The Inn moved for summary disposition, arguing that the negligence claim was barred by the Recreational Land Use Act ("RUA"), which bars negligence claims unless the landowner was paid for "fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, or any other outdoor recreational use" unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner.&nbsp; The trial court dismissed Otto's negligence claim, finding that Bailey's activities constituted "other outdoor recreational use" of the land.&nbsp; The Court of Appeals disagreed.&nbsp; Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the court held that&nbsp;child’s play on the beach is not an activity that is “of the same kind, class, character, or nature” as “fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, [or] snowmobiling.”&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted the Inn's application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision, and has invited the&nbsp;Heart of the Lakes Center for Land Conservation Policy, Real Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, and Environmental Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan to file briefs amicus curiae.

Partner

Ashley G. Chrysler

Labor and Employment

MSC to consider whether playing on a beach is “outdoor recreational use” of land

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

MSC to consider whether playing on a beach is “outdoor recreational use” of land

professionals