Utah

Recreational Use/Recreational Trespass Laws

U.C.A. 1957 57-14-1 through 57-14-8

§ 57-14-2. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

(1)(a) “Land” means any land within the territorial limits of Utah.
(b) “Land” includes roads, railway corridors, water, water courses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.

(2) “Owner” includes the possessor of any interest in the land, whether public or private land, a tenant, a lessor, a lessee, and an occupant or person in control of the premises.

(3) “Recreational purpose” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following or any combination thereof:
(a) hunting;
(b) fishing;
(c) swimming;
(d) skiing;
(e) snowshoeing;
(f) camping;
(g) picnicking;
(h) hiking;
(i) studying nature;
(j) waterskiing;
(k) engaging in water sports;
(l) engaging in equestrian activities;
(m) using boats;
(n) mountain biking;
(o) riding narrow gauge rail cars on a narrow gauge track that does not exceed 24 inch gauge;
(p) using off-highway vehicles or recreational vehicles; and
(q) viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.

(4) “Charge” means the admission price or fee asked in return for permission to enter or go upon the land.

(5) “Person” includes any person, regardless of age, maturity, or experience, who enters upon or uses land for recreational purposes.

§ 57-14-3. Owner owes no duty of care or duty to give warning--Exceptions

Except as provided in Subsections 57-14-6(1) and (2), an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by any person entering or using the premises for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on those premises to that person.

§ 57-14-4. Owner's permitting another to use land without charge--Effect

Except as provided in Subsection 57-14-6(1), an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge or for a nominal fee of not more than $1 per year any person to use the land for any recreational purpose does not thereby:

(1) make any representation or extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;

(2) confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed;

(3) assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property caused by an act or omission of the person or any other person who enters upon the land; or

(4) owe any duty to curtail the owner's use of his land during its use for recreational purposes.

§ 57-14-6. Liability not limited where willful or malicious conduct involved or admission fee charged

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall limit any liability which otherwise exists for:
(a) willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity;
(b) deliberate, willful, or malicious injury to persons or property; or
(c) an injury suffered where the owner of land charges a person to enter or go on the land or use the land for any recreational purpose.

(2) For purposes of Subsection (1)(c), if the land is leased to the state or a subdivision of the state, any consideration received by the owner for the lease is not a charge within the meaning of this section.

(3) Any person who hunts upon a cooperative wildlife management unit, as authorized by Title 23, Chapter 23, Cooperative Wildlife Management Units, is not considered to have paid a fee within the meaning of this section.

(4) Owners of a dam or reservoir who allow recreational use of the dam or reservoir and its surrounding area and do not themselves charge a fee for that use, are considered not to have charged for that use within the meaning of Subsection (1)(c), even if the user pays a fee to the Division of Parks and Recreation for the use of the services and facilities at that dam or reservoir.

(5) The state or a subdivision of the state that owns property purchased for a railway corridor is considered not to have charged for use of the railway corridor within the meaning of Subsection (1)(c), even if the user pays a fee for travel on a privately owned rail car that crosses or travels over the railway corridor if the state or a subdivision of the state:
(a) allows recreational use of the railway corridor and its surrounding area; and
(b) does not charge a fee for that use.

§ 57-14-7. Person using land of another not relieved from duty to exercise care

This chapter may not be construed to relieve any person, using the land of another for recreational purposes, from any obligation which the person may have in the absence of this act [FN1] to exercise care in use of the land and in activities thereon, or from the legal consequences of failure to employ care.

Financial Incentives for Public Access

Property Tax Incentives:
Current Use Programs: 

Statute: Agricultural Use Assessment U.C.A. §59-2-503.

Method of Assessment: Agricultural current use.

Application: Application required.

Plan: N/A

Penalty: An owner that fails to notify the county assessor that land is withdrawn is subject to a penalty equal to the greater of:(i) $10; or (ii) 2% of the rollback tax due for the last year of the rollback period. The county assessor shall determine the amount of the rollback tax by computing the difference for the rollback period between: (i) the tax paid while the land was assessed under this part; and (ii) the tax that would have been paid had the property not been assessed under this part, beginning the later of the date the land is first assessed under this part; or five years preceding the notice.

Current Use Taxation for open-space land: 

Utah has no current use taxation to promote open space or recreation.

Tax incentive specifically for providing access: 

Utah has no tax incentive to provide hunter access.

Tax Incentive when land is subject to Conservation Easement: 

Statute: § 59-2-301.1.

Valuations: In assessing the fair market value of property subject to a conservation easement under Title 57, Chapter 18, Land Conservation Easement Act, a county assessor shall include as part of the assessment any effects the conservation easement may have on the fair market value of the property.

View all states with tax incentives when land is subject to conservation easementHide all states with tax incentives when land is subject to conservation easement
Income Tax: 

Utah has no tax incentives for the donation of land or conservation easements

View all states with no tax incentives for donation of land or conservation easement Hide all states with no tax incentives for donation of land or conservation easement
Hunter Access Program: 

Name of Program: Walk in Access

Number of Acres: Unknown, although approximately 54 landowners are currently enrolled in the program.

Landowners receive payment determined by the numbers of acres enrolled and whether the property is used for hunting or fishing. Landowners are also afforded liability protection and discretionary law enforcement patrols. Although conservation benefits are not calculated, fiscal year end summaries are conducted to attempt to get a satisfaction rating average from the program participants.

For additional information regarding this state’s hunter access programs or efforts, please view the Hunting Heritage Action Plan Hunter Access Program Assessment Survey Report.

Case Law

De Baritault v. Salt Lake City Corp., 1996, 913 P.2d 743

-Utah Limitation of Landowner Liability-Public Recreation Act did not apply to small, improved city park, and thus, did not preclude minor's recovery for injuries he sustained when he fell from toddler swing and injured his head on cement ridge surrounding play area; extending Act's application to improved city parks which, unlike many private wilderness lands, were not opened to public in response to Act, and which were already covered by other laws (i.e., Governmental Immunity Act), would serve neither legislature's intent nor purpose of statute.

Jerz v. Salt Lake County, 1991, 822 P.2d 770

-Statute limiting liability of land used for “recreational purpose” could not be interpreted to afford immunity to public entity against user of public road system traveling in on-highway vehicle to recreational area.

Golding v. Ashley Cent. Irr. Co., 1995, 902 P.2d 142

-A landowner may be liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine for an injury caused by an uncommon, artificially produced, and inherently dangerous condition that attracts children when there is likelihood that a child would not appreciate the danger.
-Landowner's failure to warn or guard against dangerous conditions on the land does not constitute willful or wanton conduct for purposes of liability to trespassers under common law or the Limitation of Landowner Liability Act when the conditions are common, obvious, or inherent in the nature of the land or in the use to which the land is put.
-Owner of canal in which 17-year-old boy drowned, who neither invited public to swim there nor posted signs prohibiting it, could not be liable based on theory of simple negligence under attractive nuisance doctrine, though boy may have qualified as a child for purposes of doctrine's applicability, as the Limitation of Landowner Liability Act under which boy's father brought action limited owner's liability to breach of a duty to refrain from willful or malicious failure to warn or guard against dangers, regardless of age, maturity, or experience of persons using the land for recreation.

Figueroa v. U.S., 1999, 64 F.Supp.2d 1125

-To qualify for immunity under Utah Limitation of Landowner Liability-Public Recreation Act, land in question must be: (1) rural, (2) undeveloped, (3) appropriate for type of activities listed in the Act, (4) open to public without charge, and (5) type of land that would have been open in response to Act.