Senate Judiciary reviews bill to extend recreational‑use liability to rail and private utility corridors

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard initial testimony on proposed language to extend Vermont's recreational‑use liability protections to railroad property and certain private utility corridors.

Legislative Counsel S Leonard told the committee the amendment would add "railroad property, railroad rights of way and utility corridors to which public access is permitted" to the definition of land protected under 12 V.S.A. chapter 203, which currently shields landowners from liability for injuries to people who enter land for recreational use without payment unless the harm results from "willful or wanton misconduct." "For the record, my name is S Leonard. I'm the legislative council," he said while summarizing the statute and the proposed change.

The change is modeled on amendments adopted in other states and would make it easier for private railroads or utilities that own wide corridors to permit parallel recreational trails without creating the same exposure to ordinary suits. "An owner shall not be liable for property damage or personal injury sustained by a person who without consideration enters or goes upon the owner's land for recreational use unless the damage or injury is the result of the willful or wanton misconduct of the owner," S Leonard quoted from section 5793.

Committee members pressed on the scope and limits of that protection. One member asked whether the protection would apply only to corridors not actively used for rail operations and cited a local example near Brattleboro where a town had explored converting an unused corridor into a trail. S Leonard said the statute as drafted would allow a railroad that is not using a corridor to open a portion for recreational use but noted the parties could include termination terms in any agreement if rails were later reactivated.

Members also raised scenarios to test the draft: if a user leaves a trail and is injured on farm equipment, or if a person on the trail is struck by equipment that fell from a train because of negligent train operations. S Leonard said Vermont case law on the statute is limited and that courts have construed "willful or wanton misconduct" as conduct showing ill will or reckless disregard; in earlier cases courts have declined to find such intent where owners took steps to mark hazards. He said other states'treatment of gross negligence is less clear and would require further research.

The committee also discussed which utilities the language might cover. S Leonard suggested high‑voltage electric transmission corridors are the most likely private utility owned corridors that could be opened to recreational use; narrow easements or simple line drops across private property are less likely to qualify and the draft language could be clarified to exclude ordinary easements.

Members noted the statute does not apply to state‑owned corridors; S Leonard confirmed state land is expressly excluded from the chapter's coverage. Multiple members urged that railroads, utilities and trail organizations be invited to testify before any final decision. "We have to hear from other witnesses," the Chair said, and the committee agreed to hear the bill sponsor and stakeholders before deciding whether to add limiting language such as "not actively used for rail operations."

The bill received its first testimony at the Judiciary review; committee members did not vote on the language and asked staff to assemble additional materials and stakeholders for future hearings.