Michigan Recreational Use Immunity: MCL 324.73301 & the Gross-Negligence Carve-Out (2026)
Landowners across Michigan rely on the Recreational Use Act — MCL 324.73301 — to keep private land open to the public without facing ordinary-negligence exposure for recreational injuries. The statute bars most claims, but the gross-negligence and willful-and-wanton carve-out keeps a narrow door open for catastrophic-injury plaintiffs. This guide explains how that door opens.
What the Recreational Use Statute Actually Does
Michigan’s Recreational Use Act, codified at MCL 324.73301, bars an ordinary negligence claim against a landowner whose property is being used by another for outdoor recreation. The statute targets fishing, hunting, trapping, camping, hiking, sightseeing, motorcycling, snowmobiling, and “any other outdoor recreational use or trail use.” The barred claim revives only when the conduct rises to gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.
The legislative purpose is straightforward: encourage landowners to keep their private parcels open to the public by capping the liability exposure that would otherwise attach. Most Michigan circuits read the statute broadly in favor of the landowner; the plaintiff carries the burden of clearing the gross-negligence threshold once the statute applies.
The Gross-Negligence Carve-Out
Gross negligence under Michigan law is “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” See Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109; 597 NW2d 817 (1999), and the gross-negligence framework applied through Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80 (2004). The question is generally a fact issue for the jury, but a Michigan court may grant summary disposition where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, would not allow reasonable minds to find a substantial lack of concern.
What Counts as “Outdoor Recreational Use”
The statute’s list is illustrative, not exhaustive. Michigan courts have applied MCL 324.73301 to a wide range of outdoor activities. Common covered uses include:
- Hunting and fishing on private land with or without express permission.
- Snowmobiling and ORV operation, where the snowmobile or ORV statutes do not displace the analysis.
- Hiking and trail use, including on cleared property paths and recreational easements.
- Camping, including overnight pitched-tent use of private wooded acreage.
- Sightseeing, photographic tours, and wildlife observation.
Indoor activities, organized commercial recreation at a fee, and activities tied to a structure (such as ski-lift operation) are generally analyzed under different doctrines — sometimes the Ski Area Safety Act (MCL 408.321 et seq.), sometimes the equine-activity statute (MCL 691.1661 et seq.), sometimes ordinary premises liability post-Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, 512 Mich 95 (2023).
Status Matters — Invitee, Licensee, Trespasser
| Status | Standard outside the RUA | Effect when MCL 324.73301 applies |
|---|---|---|
| Business invitee | Duty of reasonable care under Kandil-Elsayed | Reduced to gross-negligence threshold if the activity is recreational |
| Licensee (social guest) | Duty to warn of known dangers | Reduced to gross-negligence threshold |
| Trespasser | No willful or wanton conduct | Often the same; statute aligns with common law |
| Paid admission / commercial | Reasonable care | RUA generally does NOT apply — fee defeats immunity for the operating party |
Common Litigated Scenarios
- Snowmobile through a private trail crashes into a deliberately concealed cable. Plaintiffs argue gross negligence; the cable’s purpose, the landowner’s knowledge of recreational use, and any prior warning attempts will drive the analysis.
- Hunter falls from a deer stand the landowner built and maintained. Generally barred unless the construction defect was known and deliberately concealed.
- Camper injured by a falling tree limb. Almost always ordinary negligence at most — very rarely satisfies the gross-negligence carve-out.
- Hiker injured on a marked private trail that runs beside a hidden well or shaft. The known hazard plus failure to warn pattern can support a gross-negligence theory.
Deadlines — The Same Clocks Generally Apply
- Three-year statute of limitations under MCL 600.5805(2) for personal-injury claims, including gross-negligence claims under the RUA.
- Two-year statute of limitations applies in certain medical-malpractice subspecies but not to the RUA carve-out itself.
- MCL 600.5851 minority tolling applies to minor plaintiffs.
- 120-day governmental notice under MCL 691.1404 if the landowner is a Michigan governmental unit and a different immunity framework controls.
- MCL 600.6304 comparative-fault applies; a plaintiff whose fault exceeds 50% is barred from non-economic damages.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the Recreational Use Act cover injuries on a paid hunting lease?
Often no. Charging a fee for the recreational use can defeat the immunity. The analysis is fact-specific and depends on what was paid for, who received it, and whether the payment was a true admission fee or a separate consideration.
My ATV hit an unmarked sinkhole on private land. Can I sue?
Generally only if you can prove gross negligence by the landowner — for example, knowledge of the sinkhole plus a deliberate failure to warn or barricade. Ordinary failure to inspect is usually not enough.
Does the statute apply to municipal parks?
Municipal parks are typically analyzed under the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1407, not the RUA. A different immunity framework controls, with its own 120-day notice requirement under MCL 691.1404.
What if a child was injured?
The gross-negligence threshold still applies under the statute as written. Minority does not reduce the substantive standard, although MCL 600.5851 tolls the limitations period until the child reaches 19.
Can I recover medical expenses through no-fault PIP if my recreational injury involved a vehicle?
If the injury involved a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or ORV in a manner that triggers the no-fault PIP framework, PIP benefits under MCL 500.3105 may apply independently of any tort claim. The RUA limits the tort claim, not the first-party PIP claim.
Does the landowner’s insurance cover gross-negligence claims?
Many homeowners and umbrella policies cover ordinary negligence but exclude or limit coverage for gross negligence, intentional acts, and willful misconduct. Coverage is policy-specific. Plaintiff’s counsel should request the declarations page and applicable exclusions early.
Injured on Private Land in Michigan?
Free, confidential review with Attorney Manny Chahal. No fee unless we recover.
Call 1-844-624-2425