Assembly committee hears bill to narrow recreational-immunity protections after court ruling

The Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 1 heard Senate Bill 303, a measure that would narrow Nevadas recreational-immunity statute to apply only to the State of Nevada, its political subdivisions and to private rural landowners who make their land available to the public for free.

The billwas presented by Justin Watkins of the Nevada Justice Association, who said the measure responds to a Nevada Supreme Court decision and to efforts by private for-profit companies to assert recreational immunity in ways the presenter called inconsistent with legislative intent. "The purpose of the recreational immunity statute, which was enacted in Nevada in 1963, was originally to incentivize rural private landowners to make available their open land and water to the public for free," Watkins said.

The presenters described the bill as a partial rewrite of existing law that would (1) limit who can claim immunity (state and political subdivisions; rural private landowners who provide land free to the public), (2) define where immunity applies (lands intended for recreation or designated in governmental recreational plans), and (3) clarify what counts as recreational activity. The proposed language adds that immunity would not extend to private entities leasing, occupying or using the protected premises and would not cover utilitarian activities "performed for work or transportation," the presenters said.

Attorney Ben Cloward, representing the Ozuna family, and Vicky Ozuna, widow of Anthony Ozuna, described a pending wrongful-death case in which defendants sought to amend their pleadings after the Nevada Supreme Courts Abbott v. City of Henderson opinion. Cloward said the defense was not asserted in earlier answers but was raised after Abbott. He told the committee the change in defense posture prompted the bill. "We believe that this is not in harmony with the legislative intent and certainly is a major departure from the way this statute has been read and understood for the last 30 plus years," Cloward said.

Vicky Ozuna described the September 2020 crash that led to her husbands death and blamed construction crews for setting up cones before the approved time in violation of an approved traffic-control plan. "It was the construction crews who broke protocol. Their negligence directly caused his death, and now they're trying to hide behind a technicality," Ozuna said.

Sponsors said the bill would also add two clarifications: that immunity granted to the State of Nevada does not automatically extend to third parties that use or occupy state recreational land, and that either party could seek an immediate Nevada Supreme Court decision on immunity rulings so the issue would not linger through costly litigation.

Opposition speakers said the amendment as drafted raised practical concerns. Matt Walker, representing Howard Hughes, said the developer is still discussing the language with sponsors to preserve the ability to operate large-scale, no-cost public amenities (he cited Summerlins trail system). Tommy Feraro of the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association said in written remarks that he opposes the bill as amended, warning that removing liability protections for private parks and residential common areas "may have unintended consequences."

Assembly members asked clarifying questions about events such as organized races on public land. In response to a question about whether race organizers would be entitled to immunity if permitted by a city or county, Watkins said, "The state or the city or the county would be immune from liability. The race organizers would not." Committee members did not take a formal vote during the hearing and closed the hearing after testimony.

Why it matters: Sponsors and family members said the bill responds to a change in how businesses are attempting to use a long-standing immunity; opponents said developers need more time to ensure public-access projects remain viable under the revised language. The committee will decide next steps in a later work session.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on SB303 with no immediate action taken; sponsors said they would continue discussions with local governments and developers before the bill moves forward.