This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Limiting Municipal Liability - Too Much of a 'Good' Thing?

Is more governmental immunity needed to protect the government for the public using their own land?

On Tuesday (May 17, 2011) the Connecticut House of Representatives approved a bill limiting the liability of municipalities that make public lands available for recreational purposes. The bill passed 142-1 and now moves to the state Senate.

The bill limits the liability of municipalities and districts that make lands available to the public for free. It requires the entities, however, to remain liable for certain structures, fields and roads.Testimony in support for the bill in committee testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill. 

I support public land being open to the public. However, completely eliminating municipal liability is unnecessary due to the already existing doctrine of governmental immunity. This bill, well intended as it appears to be, will likely have the consequence of further harming individuals that suffer injury on public lands due to a municipality's negligence by forcing them to pay their medical bills, lost wages and other damages.

Find out what's happening in Stratfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Is this bill good or bad? I think you can make arguments both ways.

However, if you or a loved one is hurt due to a municipality's negligence and no fault of your own what would you think then? If this becomes law it really will not matter .

Find out what's happening in Stratfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

To read the Environmental Committee Joint Report: Click Here

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?