Trespass-landowner liability.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Summary for LSO115 Bill No.: HB0108 Effective : 7/1/2015 LSO No.: 15LSO-0431 Enrolled Act No.: HEA 89 Chapter No.: 145 Prime Sponsor: Miller Catch Title: Trespass-landowner liability. Subject: Specifies the duty of care a landowner owner owes to a trespasser. Summary/Major Elements: This bill specifies that: A landowner owes no duty of care to a trespasser, except for a duty not to willfully or wantonly injure a trespasser; A landowner is subject to liability for harm to a child trespasser if: the owner knows or has reason to know that a child is likely to trespass; the condition is one that the owner knows or should reasonably know or realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to the child; the child does not discover or realize the risk associated with the condition, or in coming within the area made dangerous by it; the utility to the owner of eliminating the danger is slight as compared with the risk to the child; and, the owner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the child. If the provisions of this act conflict with other statutes with a standard or duty of care that is different, the other standard or duty of care prevails over the provisions of this act. The provisions of this act apply to claims for relief based on injuries that occur on or after July 1, 2015. Comments: Has a Delayed Effective Date : Applies to injuries that occur on or after July 1, 2015. This act codifies Wyoming case law consistent with the Restatement of Torts, rather than the new Restatement of Torts (Third) published in 2013. The above summary is not an official publication of the Wyoming Legislature and is not an official statement of legislative intent. While the Legislative Service Office endeavored to provide accurate information in this summary, it should not be relied upon as a comprehensive abstract of the bill.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 7, 4:12 AM
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges defeating the amendment because he believes it creates excessive liability for landowners, drawing on his past experience running a sawmill where children might trespass near dangerous log piles.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker asks members to oppose the bill because he believes it guts the original legislation.
R · S16
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker questions how landowners can exercise reasonable care over massive expanses of Wyoming land, implying the standard is unworkable for large properties.
S26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes it codifies existing law, though he expresses a wish for an alternative that would change case law to better protect private property rights.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges rejection of the amendment because he believes shifting to a 'reasonable care' standard would expose landowners to liability for common rural hazards like unmarked fences and gravel pits.
R · S27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the second amendment because he believes it is impossible for agricultural producers to childproof their farms or warn against all potential dangers on large properties.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because codifying common law creates a blanket rule limiting duty to avoiding willful and wanton injury, which invites future special interest carve-outs rather than preserving existing legal standards.
R · S11
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill to codify current Wyoming legal history and prevent liability from expanding under the Restatement Third, which would hold landowners liable for criminal activity on their property.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
5 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
3 stored
Failed Standing Committee by HAgriculture
Corrected, Failed 2nd reading by Nicholas, P.
Failed 2nd reading by Meier