Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />land; whether such a river is a "waterway" within the meaning of the statute; what a <br />"substantial group of the public" is or whether "the public" includes trespassers (civil or <br />criminal); whether the public "access" referred to must be legal or merely actual; or whether <br />a particular type of obstruction renders a stream "impassable" or "unreasonably inconvenient <br />or hazardous." <br /> <br />Although no Colorado court has addressed the issue, it appears that the ownership of <br />property by itself does not constitute sufficient "legal privilege" to insulate a landowner from <br />prosecution for obstruction under this statute, If ownership conferred such legal privilege, <br />the prohibition against intentional, knowing or reckless obstruction contained in this statute <br />would be significantly narrowed in its application because it could not be applied against <br />property owners. <br /> <br />(d) Civil Liability. <br /> <br />The question of whether a landowner would be liable in damages for injuries received <br />by a floater in floating across the landowner's property (whether or not the landowner has <br />erected any physical barrier to floaters, and whether the floater was a criminal or civil <br />trespasser or a non-trespasser) is an issue not capable of resolution in the absence of <br />particular facts and ciFcumstances6 <br /> <br />whether ~ 18-4-504,5 authorized a landowner to "prohibit or otherwise control" floating or <br />boating, <br />6 See, e,g.. CRS ~ 13-21-115, Actions against landowners, <br />