Hafford v. Great Northern Nekoosa Corp., 687 A.2d 967 (Me. 1996):

In this case, Wilmer Hafford sued Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation after suffering a serious injury on its land when a road partially washed out and led to a van collision. Hafford operated a commercial outfitting business and was using the road to retrieve clients’ vehicles

The Maine Superior Court granted summary judgment for Great Northern under 14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A, Maine’s recreational use statute, which limits landowner liability when land is used for recreational activities. The Maine Law Court affirmed.

Key Points:

Hafford argued he was using the road for business, not recreation. The court held that facilitating others’ recreational use (e.g., canoeing) falls within the statute’s protection.

Hafford paid a $15 seasonal fee to the North Maine Woods Association, not to Great Northern directly. The “consideration” exception to the statute’s immunity did not apply because:
> Great Northern’s land was not used primarily for commercial recreational purposes.
> Hafford did not have exclusive use of the property.

Holding:

Summary judgment for Great Northern was affirmed. The landowner was protected by the recreational use statute, and no exception to immunity applied.

Summary by ChatGPT

Robbins v. Great Northern, 557 A.2d 614 (Me. 1989)

Mary Robbins and her son sued Great Northern Paper Co. after George Robbins drowned while driving across a flooded road on Great Northern’s land en route to his leased recreational camp. The plaintiffs alleged negligence for failing to warn about high water levels caused by the company’s dam.

Key Issues:
• Robbins had a lease with Great Northern allowing recreational use and access to a camp.
• Plaintiffs argued the company should be liable under general negligence principles.

Court’s Holding:

The Maine Law Court affirmed summary judgment for Great Northern, applying Maine’s recreational use statute (14 M.R.S.A. § 159-A), which limits landowner liability for injuries occurring during recreational activities.

Rationale:
• Recreational Activity: Traveling to furnish a recreational camp qualifies as part of recreational use.
• No Willful or Malicious Conduct: Plaintiffs alleged only negligence, not the level of culpability required to overcome immunity.
• No “Consideration” Exception: The $95 annual lease payment did not constitute “consideration” for access to the land under § 159-A(4)(B); it was for leasing a camp lot, not for general recreational access.

Conclusion:
The court broadly construed the immunity statute to encourage landowners to allow recreational access. No liability was imposed on Great Northern.

Summary by ChatGPT