https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab174

It seems Steve that you stopped reading the bill a little early. The owners of the campgrounds are not totally off the hook.

" unless the property damage, death, or injury is caused by a willful or
wanton act or omission of the owner or operator of the campground or of an employee
or agent of the campground or campground owner or operator."

The way I read it, if a campground blantenly does not remove rotten trees that could fall, or doesn't fix rotten boards on the fishing pier, has electrical hook ups that are out of code, have delapitated rec areas, etc, you can still go after them if an injury/death would occur. I don't believe there's anyway they can prevent every tree/branch from ever falling no matter how many times you inspect them. No controlling Mother Nature.
I think this bill protects the campground owners from getting sued if you should trip over your water hose and bump your head, or you hit a tree while backing into your site.
Now whoever posted earlier that they are going to scratch Wisconsin off their "list", that's sad! There many beautiful campgrounds here in Wisconsin.
I would also guess that many other states have the same legislation. There's a possibility that Wisconsin is one of the last ones to pass this bill.

Sorry for the little rant. I get annoyed when people don't read the entire bill and spew misinformed opinions a cross the Internet.
To each their own.

 

Before I go further in my reply, why on earth did you assume I did not read the entire bill and how do you know other states have the same sort of bill?

Steve

 

The bill seems pretty legit. It prevents frivolous lawsuits.

Curious, what do you disagree with about the bill?

 

Actually I did a good deal more research on this bill, before I posted, as I did attempt to see if it was a pattern followed in other states and was not able to establish that it was. I am not saying I know for certain it was atypical, but I researched my own state laws and did a generic search nationally and did not get any relevant hits.

I also did read the entire bill and, on my website, I linked to the entire bill, so I knew exactly what the entire bill said.

I made an attempt to find donor patterns that may have preceded this bill, but I believe it falls into a broader category of Business and Manufacturing donors in Wisconsin, so that went nowhere.

I am also opposed to frivolous lawsuits and I am in favor of making it harder to bring suit in some special cases where there is evidence the system is failing due to lawsuits or the potential for lawsuits could severely hobble a system (for example, I do believe it should be harder to suit police officers given the nature of their work).

But laws like this limit consumer rights, of which, whether I like it or not, the right to sue is one of those rights. When you say a suit is frivolous, that always depends on perspective and this law essentially says you have to prove intent, before you can sue. Intent is always an issue whether I run into your truck or kill someone and I question the need to codify it for a special category of businesses.

If the goal was to reduce frivolity, why not write a blanket bill like this for all businesses, not just campgrounds? I would like the same type of protection for my business and I suspect others here with businesses might feel the same way.

If campgrounds fall into a special category in need of protection, what is the evidence for that need? It seems to me, and this is just my opinion, it benefits campground owners, at the expense of persons who use campgrounds.

So those are my reasons for opposing this bill or any others that I feel upset the playing field and, whether you agree or disagree with me, I thank you for asking.

Now specifically as to the state of Wisconsin, one of my favorites. I grew up there, think it is beautiful, and have camped there a number of times.

Steve

 

Fair enough on the 7th Amendment issue.

I wouldn't doubt that campground owners would lobby for a bill providing them immunity. From what I've read, this mirrors the immunity provided to government recreational entities through recreational use statutes.

Information on the drivers for this law are pretty sparse, I can't tell if this is proactive or reactive. It seems like the majority of articles on this law are from personal injury lawyers and what I assume is your blog.

I'd be interested to find some information on what insurance prices are for park owners in Wisconsin vs. here in Alaska.

 

Dave,

My blog is an RV site. It has nothing to do with personal injury, but I post about anything I think is relevant to RVers and take positions both for and against RV owners. Any reader can also email me personally with a question about their RV and, if I am able to answer it, I do so within 24 hours. I do not accept advertising and nothing is for sale there except for the name of my business and contact information. My ramblings are widely reposted on other blogs.

We all just got to stop assuming things about one another.

I also don't know about drivers in this case, I didn't find a lot about it period. In my opinion, any time your write "intent" into a law, you impose a hurdle for someone.

Steve

 

Sorry, that was poorly written on my end. I meant that there was very little information out there on the law. The majority of the sites were law office sites. I also found your site pretty high up on the search results. I didn't mean to imply that you were a personal injury lawyer (I would never stoop that low) or that you were getting a check.

By the way, you have a great business model. Mobile RV repair is something that is seriously lacking in our neck of the woods. We have quite a few RVs concentrated in a relatively small area with no mobile repair options.

 

I really like what I do, but I particularly enjoy the people I meet and work for!

Thanks,

Steve

 

That was the reason that we bought the RV park. Work for six months doing what we love instead of 12 months stuck doing something we hate.

 

First I'd like to say that I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on the Internet. I'll even admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. (I don't expect any argument!) I'll even admit that I had to look up the definition of a few of the words in the bill. I will apologize too, I can be a little sarcastic sometimes.

I did figure that you read the entire bill, but you only relayed the first sentence that did come off really negative.

I don't know if other states have a similar bill, that's why I said I "guess". Truth is, if they don't already, at some point they probably will.

Just to help me see the light, can you give me a "for instance" where we as the consumer would not be able to go after the CG? I mean this seriously. We do a lot of camping in the summer and I'd like to have some idea of my legal rights forsake something should happen.

I apologize again, I meant no harm! I must have had one of those days yesterday and this was my relief. Lol
Take care all!

 

Some of the issues that I've seen cited are if a campfire gets out of control and damages property, if someone goes swimming in a lake and drowns, if someone trips due to lack of lighting at a campsite...

From what I've read, it's meant to provide the same protections that recreation use statutes give to land owners.

 

Hey, all is fine. If you read my follow-up post, I tried to spell things out a little clearer and when I posted, I simply copied and pasted exactly what RV Business had released on the Internet, so the negativity in that was theirs.

My concern basically is this. What a person "intends" is always an issue in the commission of a crime or in a civil suit. What makes campground owners so special they have to have their own law? This law makes it harder to move forward in a suit as it give the campground owner the ability to claim they did not intend for something bad to happen. If they can take that position strongly enough, they are immune from a suit.

So if you want to sue, it adds a hurdle for you to jump as you have to prove "malice or intention" i.e. someone intended to do something evil. If you can not, you may not have grounds for a suit.

As an extreme example, suppose they are doing grounds work and the mower tosses a rock through the windshield of your truck. They didn't intend to do it? They weren't being malicious or evil. Can you sue them, if they refuse to pay for the damage. Maybe, but bills like this make it harder to do.

I am not sure how to step around the issue of frivolous lawsuits as they are a reality, but where do we draw the line? I just want all of us to have the same rights. If campground owners have immunity, I want us to have the same.

I grew up in Eau Claire, Wisconsin and spent many happy hours fishing the rivers and lakes in that area. I have also camped in Door County and at the Dells.

Stay well,

Steve

 

Wouldn't that be covered by omission on the part of the operator?

And you're right, I think the wording of the law stinks.

 

See, that's where I think things gets hazy. Is it an omission? What was omitted? This kind of law makes it so darn simple to push for immunity. It is like "what the meaning of is is?

I was going to see if I could get the bill's sponsor on the phone as I would really like to know what motivated this in the first place. I am not downing campground owners, I just don't see what makes them special.

Steve

 

Who do you use for roadside assistance that deals with an RV/trailer? We moved from AAA to Good Sam because of the roadside assistance. Have only had to use the service once on my sedan, but it was a good experience.