Nevada committee debates narrowing recreational‑use immunity in SB303 after recent high‑profile rulings

Sen. Rochelle Wynne, D‑Clark County, opened the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Senate Bill 303, a proposal to revise Nevada’s recreational‑use immunity under NRS 41.51 with the stated aim of restoring the statute’s original focus on rural, nonresidential lands and private owners who allow free public recreation.

Proponents said the measure responds to a 2024 Nevada Supreme Court interpretation in Abbott v. City of Henderson and subsequent local rulings that, in their view, expanded immunity beyond the statute’s intended purpose and shifted liability away from governments and for‑profit operators. “When you are on a sidewalk going to and from work, are you recreating?” attorney Justin Watkins asked, describing the practical questions the Abbott decision raised and arguing the bill would clarify what is — and is not — protected activity.

Watkins outlined the proponents’ conceptual goals: limit immunity for state and local entities to premises used solely for recreational activity; preserve immunity for private rural landowners who permit public access for recreation; exclude private, for‑profit operators and contractors from immunity for professional recreational services; restore a non‑exhaustive list of enumerated recreational activities while allowing future activities to be added; and ensure immunity does not shield willful, reckless or grossly negligent conduct. He said the bill’s drafters are working with jurisdictions on amendments to address practical concerns.

Local governments, county counsel and municipal attorneys registered strong opposition as drafted. Brandon Kimble for the City of Henderson, Jeff Rogan for Clark County, Brandon Sandahl for the City of Sparks and other municipal representatives warned that the bill’s current definitions — especially for “urban public infrastructure” and the test of whether land was “supported by public funds” — are ambiguous and would force courts into fact‑intensive inquiries about whether a park, trail, or portion of a facility is “urban” or “rural.” “This definition is very problematic because ... judges and lawyers could come to different conclusions,” Jeff Rogan said, adding that the change would undercut the immunity’s purpose of preventing suits from being filed at the outset.

Municipal witnesses described practical consequences they said could follow if the bill passed as written: higher insurance premiums, insurers withdrawing from public‑entity markets, and the closure or scaling back of certain facilities, from playgrounds to trails. The City of Sparks told the committee it is already facing budget and insurance strains and is considering whether some facilities could become uninsurable if liability expands.

Committee members questioned proponents and witnesses about scope and consequences. Sen. Ira Hansen and Sen. Krasner pressed whether existing statutory protections for gross negligence would still bar suits in the most extreme cases; proponents said gross‑negligence and willful‑misconduct exceptions would remain. Sen. Dallas Harris and others asked whether municipal maintenance schedules and inspection routines would affect liability determinations; municipal attorneys confirmed that many jurisdictions conduct regular inspections and hire outside consultants to identify hazards, but said routine inspections do not remove their concern about expanded exposure under the current draft.

Proponents invoked several court decisions in the hearing. Watkins referenced Abbott v. City of Henderson (2024) and earlier case law including Bolen v. Nevada Rock and Sand Co. (1995) as background for why the statute’s interpretation needs clarification. Municipal witnesses cited other states’ responses to judicial narrowing (for example, California, Oregon and Virginia) as cautionary tales about litigation and policy reactions.

No formal committee action or vote occurred at the hearing. Proponents indicated they were actively negotiating clarifying amendments with municipal stakeholders; opponents said the draft language, as written, would likely increase litigation and could reduce public recreational offerings.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing with proponents and municipal officials agreeing to continue drafting discussions. SB303 remains under committee consideration.