Angela Anderson v. Union Electric Company
463 S.W.3d 783
Mo.2015Background
- Union Electric Company (UE) owns the Lake of the Ozarks and Bagnell Dam; UE operates a dock-permit program and charges fees for dock permits.
- Angela Anderson owned lakefront property with a private dock permitted by UE; she paid permit/use fees and supplied electricity to the dock without GFI protection at or above the seawall.
- On July 4, 2012, Anderson’s two children drowned after encountering alleged "stray electrical current" in the water near the Anderson dock; Anderson sued UE for wrongful death and negligence (failure to inspect, require GFIs, and warn).
- UE moved to dismiss under Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.27(a)(6), asserting immunity under Missouri’s Recreational Use Act (RUA), § 537.345–.348; the trial court granted dismissal and Anderson appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
- The core legal disputes: whether the dock-permit/use fees constitute a "charge" (an admission fee) that defeats RUA immunity, and whether the area where the injury occurred falls within the RUA’s "noncovered land" commercial-purpose exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dock-permit/use fees are a "charge" (admission fee) that removes RUA immunity | Anderson: permit/use fees are a "charge" because they are fees for access/use of the dock and therefore defeat immunity | UE: fees are for permitting/use of dock structures, not an admission fee to enter or use the Lake; public entry to the Lake was free | Held: Fees were not a "charge" under §537.345(1); RUA immunity applies to UE |
| Whether the injury occurred on "noncovered land" (commercial-purpose exception) under §537.348(3)(d) | Anderson: portions of the Lake covered by private docks are "noncovered" because UE charges fees, making those portions used primarily for commercial purposes | UE: charging permit fees to recover costs and to fulfill FERC-authorized recreational-management responsibilities does not make primary use commercial; injury occurred in water open to public free of charge | Held: Exception does not apply; docks/nearby water not shown to be used primarily for commercial purposes, so RUA immunity stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. United States, 989 F.2d 953 (8th Cir.) (fee unrelated to admission does not defeat RUA immunity)
- Foster v. St. Louis County, 239 S.W.3d 599 (Mo. banc) (charging fees for particular facilities is not an admission fee; focus is where injury occurred)
- State ex rel. Young v. Wood, 254 S.W.3d 871 (Mo. banc) (trial court must dismiss when landowner entitled to RUA immunity)
- Coalition for Fair & Equitable Regulation of Docks on Lake of the Ozarks v. F.E.R.C., 297 F.3d 771 (8th Cir.) (FERC license authorizes permit program to protect/enhance recreational values; fees may cover permit administration)