SB-0788, As Passed Senate, May 21, 2014

SUBSTITUTE FOR

SENATE BILL NO. 788

     A bill to codify the liability of possessors of land for

injuries to trespassers.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

     Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the

"trespass liability act".

     Sec. 3. (1) A possessor of a fee, reversionary, or easement

interest in land, including an owner, lessee, or other lawful

occupant, owes no duty of care to a trespasser and is not liable to

a trespasser for physical harm caused by the possessor's failure to

exercise reasonable care to put the land in a condition reasonably

safe for the trespasser or to carry on activities on the land so as

not to endanger trespassers.

     (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a possessor of land may be

subject to liability for physical injury or death to a trespasser

if any of the following apply:

     (a) The possessor injured the trespasser by willful and wanton

misconduct.

     (b) The possessor was aware of the trespasser's presence on

the land, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of

the trespasser's presence on the land, and failed to use ordinary

care to prevent injury to the trespasser arising from active

negligence.

     (c) The possessor knew, or from facts within the possessor's

knowledge should have known, that trespassers constantly intrude on

a limited area of the land and the trespasser was harmed as a

result of the possessor's failure to carry on an activity in that

limited area involving a risk of death or serious bodily harm with

reasonable care for the trespasser's safety.

     (d) The trespasser is a child injured by an artificial

condition on the land and all of the following apply:

     (i) The possessor knew or had reason to know that a child would

be likely to trespass on the place where the condition existed.

     (ii) The possessor knew or had reason to know of the condition

and realized or should have realized that the condition would

involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to a

child.

     (iii) The injured child, because of his or her youth, did not

discover the condition or realize the risk involved in

intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous

by it.

     (iv) The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition

and the burden of eliminating the danger were slight as compared

with the risk to the child.

     (v) The possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to

eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the child.

     (3) This section does not increase the liability of a

possessor of land and does not affect any immunity from or defenses

to civil liability established by or available under the statutes

or common law of this state to which a possessor of land is

entitled.