Cameron Crogan v. Pine Bluff Estates, 257 A.3d 247

Plaintiff (then a minor) rode a motorbike on a one-lane unpaved beach access road in Pine Bluff Estates and struck a chain stretched across the road, suffering serious injury.
The beach and access road are common areas owned/controlled by Pine Bluff Estates Beach Association; use is restricted to unit owners, tenants, guests, invitees and licensees, and members pay annual assessments for maintenance.
Two posts and a chain were installed (informally by unit owners) to deter public access and partying; a Beach Committee handled beach improvements; individual defendants (Spates, Lalime, Davies) served as officers/directors but did not own lots or personally install the chain.
Plaintiff sued the Partnership, the Beach Association, the Meadows Edge Association, and the three individuals (in both representative and individual capacities).
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on grounds that Vermont’s Recreational Use Statute insulated them and that individual defendants owed no duty; on appeal the Vermont Supreme Court reversed application of the Recreational Use Statute but affirmed summary judgment for the individual defendants (no gross negligence).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vermont's Recreational Use Statute bars plaintiff's claim	Crogan: statute inapplicable because the access road/beach are developed common areas reserved for residents/guests, not open to the public, and residents pay consideration via assessments	Defendants: statute applies to limit liability here (statute’s liability provision refers to “a person” and should be read broadly)	Court: statute inapplicable — land was not open to the general public; statute meant to protect owners who make land available to the public for no consideration, so summary judgment for non-individual defendants reversed
Whether individual defendants (officers/directors) can be liable for gross negligence under 12 V.S.A. § 5781(1)	Crogan: board officers had a duty under association bylaws to approve/oversee maintenance of common areas and their omission supports a gross negligence claim	Defendants: officers were non-owners, not involved in design/installation, and § 5781(1) shields unpaid nonprofit directors absent gross negligence	Court: affirmed summary judgment for individual defendants — undisputed facts do not show heedless or palpable violation of a legal duty (no gross negligence)

Martinez v. Ross, 227 A.3d 667 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020) (interpreting recreational-use statutes as effecting a quid pro quo: public access in exchange for limited liability)
Estate of Gordon-Couture v. Brown, 876 A.2d 196 (N.H. 2005) (construing statute to limit protection to land open to the general public)
Conant v. Stroup, 51 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (agreeing courts should condition statutory protection on public access consistent with the statute’s purpose)
Gibson v. Keith, 492 A.2d 241 (Del. 1985) (stating that invitation to the public without charge is essential to invoke recreational-use protection)
Snyder v. Olmstead, 634 N.E.2d 756 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (rejecting application of recreational-use immunity to private social guests)
Perrine v. Kennecott Mining Corp., 911 P.2d 1290 (Utah 1996) (statute’s purpose defeated if protection extended to land not opened to public)
Trailside Townhome Ass’n v. Acierno, 880 P.2d 1197 (Colo. 1994) (association duty principles: associations may owe duties with respect to common areas)
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condos. Homeowners’ Ass’n, 941 P.2d 218 (Ariz. 1997) (recognizing condo/HOA duties to unit owners and guests regarding common-area safety)
Demag v. Better Power Equip., Inc., 102 A.3d 1101 (Vt. 2014) (overview of premises-liability duty distinctions)
Sevigny v. Dibble Hollow Condo. Ass’n, 819 A.2d 844 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003) (association-level duties toward unit owners and guests concerning common areas)