Cregan v. Fourth Memorial Church
285 P.3d 860
Wash.2012Background
- Riverview Bible Camp, owned by Fourth Memorial Church, runs a fee-based recreational camp but allowed Beats & Rhythms to use the facility at no charge in 2008–2009.
- Beats & Rhythms’ group, including volunteer nurse Cregan, used Riverview’s Giant Slide; Cregan sustained leg injuries during riding the slide.
- Cregan sued Fourth Memorial for premises liability; Fourth Memorial asserted recreational use immunity under RCW 4.24.200-.210 and cross-claimed for indemnification against Beats & Rhythms.
- The trial court granted Cregan summary judgment, ruling immunity unavailable because Fourth Memorial charged fees for the same use at issue.
- The appellate court certified and reviewed the immunity defense; the court held immunity does not apply because Riverview was not open to the general public.
- The court analyzed RCW 4.24.210(1)’s elements: public access, recreational use, and no fee; it concluded Riverview was not open to the public due to selective access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether immunity requires land open to the public | Cregan argues Riverview was public use since the land was used recreationally without a fee. | Fourth Memorial contends the land’s use can be public if the facility is open for free, regardless of selective access policy. | No; public openness requires open access to the general public, not selective groups. |
| Whether selective access defeats immunity | Cregan asserts free use by Beats & Rhythms should qualify as public use. | Fourth Memorial argues the fee-waiver context does not make the property publicly open to all. | Yes; discriminatory, selective access means the land is not open to the public, immunity unavailable. |
| Whether the fee status of the use governs immunity | Cregan relies on no-fee use to argue immunity. | Fourth Memorial bears the burden but argues the public/open status is controlling; fee status alone is not dispositive here. | Court did not need to reach the fee issue; immunity not available because property was not open to the public. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nielsen v. Port of Bellingham, 107 Wn. App. 662 (2001) (access restrictions evaluated objectively for public openness)
- Home v. N. Kitsap Sch. Dist., 92 Wn. App. 709 (1998) (public use during nonbusiness times; permissible restrictions)
- McCarver v. Manson Park & Recreation Dist., 92 Wn.2d 370 (1979) (statute applies to land used for free recreation)
- Bustamante Gonzalez, 168 Wn.2d 256 (2010) (plain meaning of 'public' and open access concepts)
- Gaeta v. Seattle City Light, 54 Wn. App. 603 (1989) (commercial or recreational land use considerations)