Hunter insurance...useful or not worth it?

[Napping in the woods]

I've recently moved into the Ulster/Orange County area....and so the seemingly monumental task of accessing private land began in spring/early summer.  I've spoken to a few folks, even though the conversations were friendly enough,  with no success.  Each of them brought up the dreaded "liability" issue.  I know this is a circular argument with lots of confusing legal mumbo-jumbo; it also be can used as polite way to say "stay off," which I do.

 

I did a little digging and I found a couple of options, one is 300 per year for me and an addition 47 for each landowner I add.  It covers both of us.  I'm wondering 1) if this helps my always friendly request to access land and 2) is it a worthwhile investment?  I've been pretty successful on state land in the region, but I've been getting really nervous lately with some of those run-ins with the not so noble among us.  Just back into bow hunting this year, which I'm really excited about, but I also use a shotgun/rifle, a modern smokepole and a flintlock...yes, the flinter stems from my PA hunting traditions, love that after Christmas hunting!

 

Interested in hearing some insightful input, sprinkled amongst the standard, and overwhelming, "you're an idiot" comments.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Napping in the woods

[ATbuckhunter]

See if you can have some one draw up a contract that waves your right to sue them for any accidents that may happen on their land. 

[JimMac]

Recreational Liability When No Fee Is Charged

Liability is a concern that all landowners face in arriving at a policy about recreational use of their property by others. What if a hunter, hiker, or another recreationist is injured on your property? Are you liable?

 

The New York State Legislature was among the first in the nation to realize how much people depend upon the use of private property for outdoor recreation. To encourage landowners to keep their lands open to recreationists, legislation was passed in 1956 that limited the liability of landowners who allowed hunting, fishing, trapping, and training of dogs on their property when no fee is charged and the landowner receives no other consideration from the recreationist. In the succeeding years, numerous other recreation activities have been added to this list in General Obligations Law (GOL) 9-103: canoeing, hiking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, motorized vehicle operation for recreational purposes, snowmobile operation, cross-country skiing, tobogganing, sledding, hang gliding, speleological activities, boating, and the cutting or gathering of wood for noncommercial purposes.

 

GOL 9-103 does not totally exclude the liability of landowners toward recreationists. Assuming no fee is charged, the statute states that the landowner owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by recreationists pursuing the listed activities, or to give warning of any hazardous condition, use of property, structure, or activity on the property to persons entering for recreation. It also states that farm owners or lessees have no duty to keep their farms safe for use by recreationists or to give warning of hazardous conditions or uses of the property. However, landowners are not protected if they intentionally harm a recreationist, or if they "willfully" or "maliciously" fail to guard against, or warn recreationists of, a danger on the property.

 

 

Question: Can I be sued for natural situations or hazards, such as if a hunter trips over a rock or falls down a steep slope and is injured?

 

Opinion: Anyone can be sued, but to be successfully sued if GOL 9-103 applies, the recreationist must prove that you (1) knew of a dangerous condition on your property, (2) realized the possibility of the recreationist encountering it, and (3) willfully or maliciously failed to eliminate or reduce the hazard or to warn the recreationist of it; and (4) he or she must show proof of actual loss or damage. Generally, previous courts have ruled that landowners have no duty to warn about naturally occurring, readily observable natural situations such as lakes, streams, or steep slopes.

 

 

Question: Suppose there is a hazard on my property, such as an abandoned well or a fallen-in barn, that a recreationist might encounter. How can I protect myself against someone getting hurt and suing me?

Opinion: 1. Do all you can to eliminate the hazard. Have the well filled in or the building torn down.

 

the full text can be read here ..

http://www2.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/info/pubs/LegalFinancial/liability_boundary_posting.htm

 

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

Good info JimMac.

 

I suspect that anyone who raises the liability issue is politely saying no and that offering to buy insurance will not matter. I never worry about liability for hunters. I am not about to go around filling in all the woodchuck holes that could break a leg.

[The_Field_Ager]

Napping in the woods is a low risk activity. I would forego the expense of extra insurance. 

[Curmudgeon]

I was napping in the woods once and a 12" snag broke off and landed parallel to my leg about 2' away. A little more and I might have needed life insurance.

[Mr VJP]

Being an NRA member gives you certain insurance at no cost to you.  You are covered if you injure someone else, or injure yourself.  You even have life insurance if you die while participating in an outdoor activity.  Annual NRA membership may give you everything you are looking to pay $300 for.

 

Call the NRA for details.

 

Another good reason to join the NRA.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Mr VJP

[Core]

I am not positive, but assume my personal umbrella policy that I recently got for $150/year for $1M (was tagged onto home insurance) would cover me if I did something bad, though in terms of protecting a land owner if I try to sue them, I think we'd need to refer to the NY state law in general, though if you pay for them then they are now in a separate situation.

 

What unnoble run-ins do you have?