## Facts

- The San Patricio Bayou Hunting Club was an unincorporated association formed for sport hunting.
- The club leased an undeveloped, nonresidential tract of land in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, for hunting.
- James P. “Trey” Gimber, III was the club’s treasurer and signed the lease on the club’s behalf.
- James A. Reed, Jr. was also a member of the hunting club.
- While hunting on the leased property, Reed climbed into a movable tree stand located near a game trail.
- The tree stand had been installed by Gimber.
- As Reed prepared to fasten his safety belt, the tree stand collapsed, and Reed fell and suffered injuries.
- Reed sued Gimber and Gimber’s liability insurer, Employers Mutual Casualty Company, alleging that Gimber negligently installed the tree stand.
- Gimber and Employers Mutual moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under Louisiana’s recreational-use statutes.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Reed’s suit, and Reed appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Gimber and Employers Mutual were entitled to summary judgment based on recreational-use immunity under La. R.S. 9:2791 and La. R.S. 9:2795 for injuries caused by a collapsed movable tree stand allegedly negligently installed by Gimber.

## Decision

- The court of appeal reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo under La. C.C.P. art. 966.
- The court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Gimber and Employers Mutual and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the recreational-use statutes did not establish, as a matter of law on this record, that Gimber was immune from liability for Reed’s injuries.
- The court reasoned that recreational-use immunity is directed at limiting the duties of qualifying landowners (and related protected persons) for hazards associated with outdoor land made available for recreation, and it did not clearly extend to shield a fellow hunter/club member from a claim based on his alleged negligent installation of a movable tree stand.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review of summary judgment is de novo.
- Louisiana’s recreational-use statutes (including La. R.S. 9:2791 and La. R.S. 9:2795) limit the duty owed by an “owner, lessee, or occupant” of qualifying land who permits others to use the land for enumerated recreational activities, including hunting, and generally relieve the protected party from a duty to keep the premises safe or to warn of hazardous conditions.
- To obtain recreational-use immunity, the defendant must satisfy statutory requirements tied to (1) the defendant’s protected status (owner/lessee/occupant or other covered party), (2) the type of land (typically undeveloped, rural or semirural, nonresidential), (3) the recreational activity, and (4) whether the injury-causing condition is of the type contemplated by the statutes and related jurisprudence.
- Although the statutes can extend protection to hunting clubs that lease land for hunting, the protection does not automatically immunize every club member for personal acts of alleged negligence simply because the injury occurred during hunting on leased land.
- In evaluating immunity at the summary-judgment stage, a court must determine whether the defendants have shown that the statutes clearly apply to the particular defendant and the particular risk that caused the injury, rather than treating immunity as a blanket bar to any claim arising during recreational use.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Second Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal because the defendants did not show they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on recreational-use immunity: the statutes aimed at limiting landowner-type duties did not clearly bar Reed’s claim that a fellow club member negligently installed a movable tree stand that collapsed and caused injury, so the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Reed v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 741 So. 2d 1285 (1999)