# Lockner v. Pierce Cnty.

> Washington Supreme Court · April 19, 2018 · 190 Wash. 2d 526

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6533547

## Case

- **Full name:** Margie M. LOCKNER v. PIERCE COUNTY and Blair Smith
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 19, 2018
- **Citations:** 190 Wash. 2d 526; 415 P.3d 246
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Madsen
- **Judges:** González, Madsen
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6533547

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting disputed issues of fact as to whether the I-90 trail “could be used for recreation”

## Opinion text

MADSEN, J. (concurring)
¶ 25 I agree with the majority that the plain language of RCW 4.24.210 provides recreational use immunity to Pierce County and note that the majority's application here comports substantially with the dissent's analysis in Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co. , 179 Wash.2d 684 , 317 P.3d 987 (2014), which also stressed the plain language application of the recreational use immunity statute, RCW 4.24.210. The majority here correctly states, "In light of [ RCW 4.24.210's] plain language, immunity is not extinguished when land is used for other public or private activities in addition to recreation." Majority at 9. I write separately because I see the majority as a necessary course correction after Camicia , which I believe will provide more useful guidance to the courts below. Accordingly, I concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6533547. Public record. Not legal advice.