Section 66-3-1013 - Liability; local registration prohibited

A. A landowner shall not be held liable for damages arising out of off-highway motor vehicle-related accidents or injuries occurring on the landowner's lands in which the landowner is not directly involved unless the entry on the lands is subject to payment of a fee. B. It is unlawful to operate an off-highway motor vehicle on private lands or roads except with the express permission of the landowner or leaseholder of the lands. History: 1953 Comp., § 64-42-13, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 240, § 13; recompiled as 1953 Comp., § 64-3-1013, by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 209; 1985, ch. 189, § 13; 2005, ch. 325, § 16. ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — As enacted, this section contained a section heading which read 'Liability; local registration prohibited'. The 2005 amendment, effective January 1, 2006, provided in Subsection B that it is unlawful to operate an off-highway vehicle on private roads without the permission of the landowner or leaseholder of the land. Equal Protection Clause considerations. — The operation of off-highway motorcycles is a potentially dangerous activity and the singling out of these vehicles in Section 66-3-1013 NMSA 1978 is not precluded by the Equal Protection

erations. — The operation of off-highway motorcycles is a potentially dangerous activity and the singling out of these vehicles in Section 66-3-1013 NMSA 1978 is not precluded by the Equal Protection Clause. Vandolsen v. Constructors, Inc., 1984-NMCA-023, 101 N.M. 109, 678 P.2d 1184, cert. denied, 101 N.M. 77, 678 P.2d 705. This section does not confer recreational usage immunity on government landowners. Martin v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 2008-NMCA-151, 145 N.M. 151, 194 P.3d 766. Exception for willful or malicious conduct. — The words 'directly involved' in this provision refer to 'willful' or 'malicious' conduct by landowners proximately causing injury to individuals who have entered upon their property. Summary judgment against plaintiff was therefore proper when there were no facts indicating that defendants' actions causing plaintiff's injury were 'willful' or 'malicious' in nature. Matthews v. State, 1991-NMCA-116, 113 N.M. 291, 825 P.2d 224. Utter disregard for consequences. — If a landowner performs intentional acts 'in utter disregard for the consequences,' the landowner is not entitled to immunity.

MCA-116, 113 N.M. 291, 825 P.2d 224. Utter disregard for consequences. — If a landowner performs intentional acts 'in utter disregard for the consequences,' the landowner is not entitled to immunity. When a defendant claims immunity, plaintiffs are therefore not required to prove deliberate intention or purpose to harm in order to rebut the claim. Rivero v. Lovington Country Club, Inc., 1997-NMCA-114, 124 N.M. 273, 949 P.2d 287.