Defense Digest

Easement Holders Equals Owner Under The Rulwa

In Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, Ltd. et al., 2005 Lexis 2548, (Pa. 2005), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that an easement holder who exercises sufficient control over land is considered an occupant or person in control of the premises and is, thus, entitled to the tort immunity protection under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RULWA).

In Stanton, the plaintiffs alleged that minor plaintiff, Jesse Stanton, was injured while riding a motorcycle on land owned by Lackawanna Energy. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company ("PP & L") owned an easement interest in the land. PP & L maintained electrical facilities, a dirt road, and a gate on the land of the easement interest. The plaintiffs allege that PP & L was negligent in its failure to maintain the easement, post warning signs regarding the gate, exclude the public from its easement, maintain the property in a safe condition, and for maintaining an attractive nuisance and dangerous condition. PP & L asserted its immunity under RULWA as a defense, arguing that as an easement holder, they were an "owner" of land.

The RULWA states:

The defendant not only relied on §447-3, but also argued that the purpose of the Act is "to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes." 68 PS § 477-1.

The Stanton case presented an issue of first impression for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Specifically, whether an easement holder is considered a person in control of the premises or an occupant entitled to the protection under RULWA. The Supreme Court determined an easement holder is protected under the RULWA.

The Supreme Court looked first at the plain language of the statute. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Statutory Construction Act, the Court must construe the language of a statute according to the rules of grammar and accord each word its common and approved usage. The issue in Stanton was whether the easement holder would be an occupant or person in control of the premises. Under the Pennsylvania Statute, an "owner" is defined as "a possessor of a fee interest, as a tenant, a lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises." Further, according to Black's Law Dictionary, an occupant is defined as "one who has possessor rights in, or control over, certain property of premises." An easement is "an interest in land owned by another person, consisting in the right to use or control the land, or an area above or below it for a specific limited purpose." The Court stated that, "arguably, an easement holder actually has greater rights than a tenant or lessee." In this case, the Court, therefore, held that based on the accepted meanings of the relevant terms, PP & L is an "occupant" of the property. As evidence of such, PP & L maintained the electrical facilities, used the dirt road along the utility line, and utilized a gate as needed. Further, PP & L’s control over the ingress or egress of persons and vehicles to the property evidenced that they had control over the premises. PP & L and Lackawanna’s easement agreement provided additional support for the above determination. These activities evidenced PP & L’s possessory rights.

Moreover, the Court found additional support for its holding in Restatement (Second) of Torts §328E, which defines a possessor of land. A "possessor of land" is:

Thus, because an easement holder occupies the land with the intent to control it, an easement holder is a possessor of land. Restatement (Second) of Torts §328(e). Accordingly, "the owner of an easement is subject to the same liability as a possessor of the premises." Therefore, where an easement owner is considered a possessor under Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 328(e), he subsequently is exposed to liability. Fegler v. Duquesne Light, Co., 441 Pa. 421, 273 A.2d 738 (Pa. 1971). However, the Court limited its holding by concluding that not all easement holders will be considered possessors of land; only those who exercise sufficient control will be a possessor under RULWA and Restatement § 328(e). The Court explained that to recognize potential tort liability in an easement holder, but to deny the RULWA's ordinary negligence tort immunity to that same entity, would undermine the purpose of the RULWA.

Thus, if an easement holder exercises sufficient control to be subject to liability as a possessor, he must also be afforded the protections that RULWA provides occupants and persons in control of the land. PP & L, therefore, was immune from liability under RULWA for injuries sustained by the plaintiff as it was considered an easement holder that exercised sufficient control over the land and considered an occupant or person in control of the premises.

*Jennifer is an associate in our Philadelphia, PA office. She can be reached directly at (215) 575-2581 or by email at jkralle@mdwcg.com.