Laserfiche WebLink
s. <br /> (Article for Keeping Up <br /> 111/1 <br /> I UNDERSTAND . . . <br /> A man once said, "Seek not to know all the answers, but understand the <br /> questions." Mr. Timothy Marx, representing Holmes and Graven, not only helped <br /> us understand the questions involved in the current municipal parks and <br /> recreation insurance market, but also proposed an answer, or at least some <br /> relief to our problems. <br /> Mr. Marx pointed out that under current law governments have greater <br /> liability exposure than either the State or private landowners who provide the <br /> same type of outdoor recreation opportunities for the general public. He <br /> 111/0 emphasized that it is difficult for local governments to minimize the risk of <br /> providing park and recreation services because recreational activities involve <br /> risk which individuals assume on their own free will . When persons ski, bike, <br /> swim or go hiking, their own judgment and discretion are the most important <br /> factors in making an activity safe or potentially hazardous. Yet, under <br /> current law local governments and taxpayers can end up paying for the risks <br /> which individuals take of their own free will . If local governments are to <br /> continue to provide high quality recreational opportunities that its citizens <br /> demand, individuals - not taxpayers - must bear more of the risk of their <br /> decision to use public parks and recreation areas. <br /> He further reviewed the constitutional status of the current laws; <br /> concluding that there are strong arguments that could be advanced that <br /> III/1 recreational use immunity should be extended to local governments if the <br />