Maryland Accident Law Blog
Last updated September 29, 2026 · Reviewed by Vadim A. Mzhen
A woman visiting her son’s grave at a Prince George’s County cemetery stepped into a ditch hidden by poor upkeep and was seriously hurt. A trial court threw out her negligence case, reasoning that Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute relieved the cemetery’s owner of any duty to her because she had entered without paying. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed that ruling in a reported opinion filed July 30, 2026, holding that the trial court had applied the wrong legal test.
Free entry alone does not trigger the Maryland recreational use statute. The court has to look at the area where the injury happened, ask what the owner intended that area to be used for, and ask what the injured person was doing there, not why she was there. A claim can go forward where the area was meant for commercial purposes and the person’s activity fit those purposes, even if the same activity could also be described as recreational.
Landowners raise this statute in parks, on trails, and on open ground all over the state, and Lebowitz & Mzhen Personal Injury Lawyers looks for it early in any Maryland slip and fall claim arising on land the public can enter for free.
What the Recreational Use Statute Says
The Recreational Use Statute is the Maryland law, codified at Natural Resources §§ 5-1101 through 5-1109, that limits the liability of owners who make their land available to the public for recreational or educational use without charge. Section 5-1103 states the core of it, that such an owner owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use and no duty to warn of a dangerous condition. Section 5-1104 adds that permitting this use extends no assurance that the land is safe and confers no invitee or licensee status on the visitor.
Two situations fall outside the protection. The first is a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition. The second is an injury to a person the owner charged for entry for recreational or educational use. The statute defines recreational purpose broadly, as any recreational pursuit, and its definition of educational purpose reaches the observation of historical, archaeological, and scientific sites.
How the Court Applied the Test to a Cemetery
The cemetery was open to the public and marketed as a historically significant site. Its owner argued that opening the grounds for recreational and educational use gave it immunity for any injury anywhere on the property. The visitor argued that the statute did not cover her because she had bought her son’s plot and returned as a customer of the business.
Neither position carried the day. The court held that a visitor’s status under common law premises rules has no bearing on the statute, which covers non-paying recreational and educational users whatever their common law category. It also rejected the owner’s blanket theory, which would “stretch the Recreational Use Statute beyond the statute’s stated purpose” and let a commercial landowner escape liability everywhere on its property by opening part of it to the public.
The framework the court applied comes from a 2025 decision of the Supreme Court of Maryland involving a cyclist injured by a defect on Baltimore’s Inner Harbor promenade. What the user was doing on the property controls, and the user’s private reason for being there does not. Applied to a cemetery, a court has to decide whether the spot where the visitor fell belongs to the commercial side of the operation, which includes selling plots, conducting funerals, and visiting graves, or to an area set aside for recreation or education. The case returns to the trial court for that decision.
Where This Comes Up Besides Cemeteries
Land, under the statute, includes roads, paths, trails, water, and buildings. It does not include a structure or piece of equipment a unit of local government provides for public recreation, so the statute does not shield a county from a claim over playground equipment it installed, one of the settings behind claims for injuries to minors and children.
If you were hurt on private land that is open to the public, where you fell and what you were doing may shape your claim as much as the hazard itself. Photographs of the immediate area, signage, and paths are worth collecting before anything is regraded or mowed. Maryland’s contributory negligence rule applies here too, so an owner who cannot rely on the statute will often argue that the hazard was open and obvious.
We represent people injured on land they had every right to be on, from cemetery grounds and public trails to parking areas and walkways on commercial property throughout Maryland. When an owner invokes the Recreational Use Statute, our attorneys examine how that part of the property is actually used, what the owner says about it in its own marketing, and whether anyone was charged to come in. We document the scene before conditions change, and we handle these cases on contingency.
Getting a Fall on Open Land Reviewed
A landowner’s immunity defense turns on facts about the property that are best gathered while the scene still looks the way it did that day. Lebowitz & Mzhen Personal Injury Lawyers represents people hurt on private and public property across Maryland, including Prince George’s County. If you would like us to look at your claim, call (800) 654-1949 or contact us online. The consultation is free, and you owe nothing unless we recover.