I. Introduction
Relators seek a writ of mandamus ordering dismissal of a wrongful death claim brought by the decedents of a man killed while hunting on Relators’ property. Because Relators are entitled to immunity under Missouri’s Recreational Use Act (“RUA”), 1 the alternative writ of mandamus is made peremptory.
II. Facts
Relators, the Youngs, gave permission to James Shaw and John Hartnagel to enter their farm for the purpose of hunting wild turkeys. Neither man knew the other was on the farm. While hunting, Hart-nagel thought he heard a wild turkey and discharged his weapon in the direction of the sound. Unfortunately, the source of the noise was Shaw, who was struck by the shots fired and died from the injuries.
Plaintiffs sued Relators as well as Hart-nagel for wrongful death, alleging that Re-lators were negligent in failing to warn Shaw that other hunters were or might be nearby. Relators filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing immunity from suit under the RUA. The motion was denied. Relators ask this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent to vacate denial of Relators’ motion to dismiss, and to enter an order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claim against Rela-tors.
III.Standard of Review
A litigant seeking mandamus must “allege and prove that he has a clear, unequivocal, specific right to a thing claimed.”
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City,
IV.Analysis
A.
The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of
*873
the statute.
State ex rel. Bums v. Whittington,
B.
The key portion of the RUA, section 537.346, states:
Except as provided in sections 537.345 to 537.348, an owner of land owes no duty of care to any person who enters on the land without charge to keep his land safe for recreational use or to give any general or specific warning with respect to any natural or artificial condition, structure, or personal property thereon.
The purpose of the RUA is “to encourage the free use of land for recreational purposes in order to preserve and utilize our natural resources.”
Foster v. St. Louis County,
To invoke the RUA, the general requirements are “(1) an owner of the land; (2) entry upon the land; (3) entry upon the land without charge; and (4) entry for recreational use.”
Lonergan v. May,
The Youngs meet the RUA’s requirements because they allowed Shaw and Hartnagel on their land, free of charge, to engage in the recreational use of hunting. 2 The RUA therefore applies and the Youngs owed no duty to Shaw to keep their land safe or to give any general or specific warnings about the presence of other hunters on the property.
C.
The Shaws raise two arguments against application of the RUA, neither of which is persuasive.
1.
First, the Shaws argue that the RUA requires land owners to open their property to the entire general public. This requirement is mentioned nowhere in the plain language of the RUA. The Shaws appear to draw this additional requirement from dicta in the
Lonergan
opinion stating that RUA’s are designed to “encourage landowners to open their lands to
the public
for recreational use by restricting the landowners liability.”
Lonergan,
The use of the term “public” merely reflects the fact that the statute is designed to encourage landowners with property suitable for certain recreational activities to allow members of the public to participate in those activities. Nowhere does the RUA require that land be opened to the entire general public, and this Court will not add language to a statute that is clear and unambiguous.
Lombardi,
2.
The Shaws also argue that the RUA does not apply because section 537.346 only limits the duty of care with regard to a “natural or artificial condition, structure, or personal property.” The Shaws believe that the presence of another hunter, Mr. Hartnagel, does not fall under any of these categories.
We need not address this argument because section 537.347 of the RUA explicitly provides that a land owner who invites or permits a person onto his land for recreational use, without charge, does not “[a]s-sume responsibility for any damage or injury to any other person or property caused by an act or omission of such'person.” Id. Because Young allowed Hartna-gel on his land to engage in the recreational use of hunting, free of charge, he does not assume responsibility for any damage or injury to any other person caused by an act or omission of Hartnagel.
V. Conclusion
The RUA provides Relators immunity from the wrongful death suit at issue. Accordingly, the alternative writ of mandamus is made peremptory.