Colorado’s highest peaks, off bounds

Among mountain climbers, no American state compares to Colorado with its 54 “14ers” — peaks over 14,000 feet high. According to the Colorado Mountain Club, more than 1,000 persons have accomplished the feat of climbing all 54 of them. But climbers are now facing a new obstacle: some of the trails up to the peaks […]

Among mountain climbers, no American state compares to Colorado with its 54 “14ers” — peaks over 14,000 feet high. According to the Colorado Mountain Club, more than 1,000 persons have accomplished the feat of climbing all 54 of them. But climbers are now facing a new obstacle: some of the trails up to the peaks pass through private land, and liability fears are changing landowners’ minds about granting access:

“We’ve known for years that people are climbing on our land,” said Maurice Reiber, whose Earth Energy Resources Co. owns chunks of several 14ers. “The reason we asked the Forest Service to do something about it this year is because society has changed.

“Let’s face it,” Reiber continued, “this is a lawsuit-happy country nowadays. If somebody breaks through a gate up there and falls into an old mine shaft, they might decide to sue me. The liability question is the issue we’ve got to resolve.”

The Forest Service said there has been no such legal action to date. But many peak-baggers sympathize with the landowners’ concern.

“Here’s a guy who’s generous enough to let people use his property for free,” noted T.J. Rapoport, a veteran climber who runs the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative, an environmental group. “But the lawyers tell us there is no waiver, no release he could design that would definitely protect him against a jury verdict.”

(T.R. Reid, “Private Obstacles Block Climb to 14,000-Foot Peaks”, Washington Post, Jul. 17).

P.S. Reader Jay Strickland writes to ask, “Does Colorado have a recreational use statute like we have here in Georgia? The statutes (OCGA 51-3-20 through 51-3-26) absolve owners of liability, except for willful and wanton acts, for giving free access to their property. Similar legislation would seem to address these concerns.”

Colorado attorney Aaron J. Hill responds: Yep, Colorado has a recreational use statute (CRSA 33-41-101 et seq.)(out of date version here). But the carve-out in Section 104 is broad enough that any owner with a known hazard (i.e. mineshafts) or that is using its land for commercial purposes would be ill advised to rely on it. I’m guessing that Earth Energy Resources has some commercial purpose for that land.

“On the other hand, property owners can limit their liability by leasing the land to a public entity for recreational purposes (or granting an easement or other use right). I have helped other land owners grant easements to local recreation districts to take advantage of this additional protection.” Update Jan. 22: bill introduced in state legislature to help.

Comments are closed.