What Protects Waterfront Landowners from Personal Injury Lawsuits
As weather in Michigan becomes warmer signaling the approach of summer, waterfront property owners begin thinking about boats, docks, jet skis, etc. Every summer, unfortunate accidents occur that are related to water and recreational activities: swimmers make a wrong judgment regarding the depth of the water and dive into shallow water resulting in severe neck injuries, boaters and those driving personal watercraft can be blinded by the sun and fail to see someone skiing or tubing behind a boat resulting in a catastrophic accident, a “slip and fall” during a game of volleyball played on the beach or in shallow water can cause unexpected and long-lasting injuries.
In 1987 the Michigan Supreme Court consolidated two cases, one involving an individual who was injured while slipping on logs that property owners installed at the edge of a lake to prevent erosion. The resulting neck injury caused paralysis from the shoulders down. Three neighborhood associations and individual subdivision lot owners were sued for damages. The defendants included over 200 individuals. The other case involved a child who drowned while she and her mother were visiting relatives. The child died in the shallow part of a pond owned by her aunt and uncle. The Supreme Court determined that the cases could proceed to trial despite the protections afforded property owners in the Michigan Recreational Land Use Act (RUA). The Court determined that the RUA was only applicable to large, undeveloped tracts of land.
The RUA, Michigan Compiled Law 324.73301(1) states: “[A] cause of action shall not arise for injuries to a person who is on the land of another without paying the owner . . . for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, or any other outdoor recreational use . . . unless the injuries were caused by gross negligence [i.e., intentional misconduct] or willful and wanton misconduct of the owner.” In 2004, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed itself and determined that the RUA will, in fact, operate pursuant to its plain language. Therefore, unless a property owner acts with the intent to harm another, the RUA can protect a property owner from liability for injuries sustained by a third party who is performing recreational activities on the land irrespective of whether the land is undeveloped, developed, vacant, occupied, urban, suburban, rural, subdivided or unsubdivided.
The 2004 case involved a passenger on an ATV who injured her back after being bounced off the ATV as a result of the driver driving over an uneven area of the lawn. The Court determined that the RUA is limited in application to certain activities, i.e. outdoor recreational activities, but it is not limited in application to particular types of land. “Therefore, an owner is not liable to a nonpaying outdoor recreational user of his land, unless the user’s injuries are caused by the owner’s gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.” Neal v. Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 670; 658 N.W.2d 648, 653 (Jul 20 2004). Thus, pursuant to the RUA, a landowner cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by a person while using the landowner’s land for an outdoor recreational activity, provided that
- (1) the person has not paid the landowner to use the land, and
- (2) that the injuries were not caused by the landowner’s gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.
Although property owners may breathe a little easier, the RUA does not protect a property owner from a lawsuit. It does, however, provide the property owner a defense if the facts of the case satisfy the provisions of the statute.
Heather Brenneman Miles
The Michigan General Property Tax Act (the Act) requires real property in Michigan be assessed yearly and taxed at one-half (1/2) of its true cash value (true cash value is the same as market value). However, with the passage of the Headlee Amendment to the Michigan Constitution in 1994, limitations were placed on how much assessments and taxes could go up each year. Since 1994-1995, annual property tax increases have been “capped” at levels specified in the Act and remain capped until a “transfer of ownership” occurs. Once a transfer of ownership occurs, the property is reassessed at one-half (1/2) of the “true cash value” as of that date and the taxes, in most cases, go up substantially. The property tax is capped at the new, higher amount until the next transfer of ownership takes place (Michigan property tax bills show a “Taxable Value” and a “State Equalized Value.” The Taxable Value is the capped value upon which the property tax is assessed. The State Equalized Value approximates one-half (1/2) of the true cash value/market value of the property. Once the property tax is uncapped, the State Equalized Value and the Taxable Value become the same for the year in which the uncapping occurred and the cap goes back into effect at that amount).
In 2006, the assessor for the City of Charlevoix determined that the death of James in 2005 constituted a conveyance to Nathan and uncapped the property taxes, resulting in a new taxable value that was almost double the previous taxable value. Nathan appealed the assessor’s determination to the local board of review which upheld the decision of the assessor. Nathan appealed that decision to the Michigan Tax Tribunal which upheld the decision of the board of review. Nathan appealed that decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.