Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute: Why “You Didn’t Pay to Get In” Doesn’t Automatically Kill Your Injury Claim
If you are hurt on someone else’s property in Maryland, the owner’s insurer may raise a defense most people have never heard of: the Recreational Use Statute. When it applies, it does not reduce what you can recover — it wipes out the claim, because it says the owner owed you no duty of care in the first place.
On July 30, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland put a real limit on how far that defense reaches. In DeVaughn v. StoneMor Partners, L.P., No. 578, Sept. Term 2025 (opinion by Nazarian, J.), the court held that a landowner cannot claim blanket immunity simply because it lets the public in for free. The official opinion is posted on the Maryland Judiciary’s website.
What happened
Lakisha DeVaughn buried her son in 2021 at Lincoln Memorial Cemetery in Suitland, in Prince George’s County, and visited his gravesite once or twice a year. During an April 2024 visit, while walking around her son’s grave, she stepped into a concealed ditch and was seriously injured. She alleged the ditch was hidden by poor upkeep around the gravesite, and sued StoneMor Partners, the cemetery’s owner and operator, for negligence.
StoneMor moved to dismiss. Its argument was not that it had maintained the grounds properly. It was that it owed Ms. DeVaughn no legal duty at all, because it holds the cemetery open to the public — advertising the grounds as a historical venue reflecting African-American history — and did not charge her anything to walk in that day.
The circuit court agreed and threw the case out. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed.
What the Recreational Use Statute actually says
Maryland’s Recreational Use Statute is codified at Md. Code, Natural Resources §§ 5-1101 through 5-1109. Its stated purpose is to encourage landowners to open their land to the public for recreational and educational use by limiting their liability toward people who come on the land for those purposes.
The operative provision is blunt. Under § 5-1103, an owner of land "owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational or educational purpose," and owes no duty to warn of a dangerous condition. Section 5-1104 adds that a landowner permitting such use without charge extends no assurance that the premises are safe, and does not turn the visitor into an invitee or licensee owed a duty of care.
Two definitions do a lot of work. "Recreational purpose" is defined at § 5-1101(g) as "any recreational pursuit" — about as broad as a definition gets. "Educational purpose" is defined at § 5-1101(c) to include the observation of historical, archaeological, or scientific sites, which is exactly the hook StoneMor reached for.
Maryland’s appellate courts have applied this framework to private owners and local governments alike, and it covers all non-paying recreational and educational users regardless of how they would otherwise be categorized under common law. That last point matters: Ms. DeVaughn argued she was a "business invitee" because she had bought the burial plot. The court rejected that framing. Under the statute, your common-law status as invitee or licensee is beside the point.
The two-step test the courts now use
So if the visitor’s status doesn’t decide it, what does?
In 2025, the Supreme Court of Maryland answered part of that in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Wallace, 492 Md. 349 (2025) (Gould, J.; official PDF). A cyclist fell when her front tire wedged in a gap between bricks on Baltimore’s Inner Harbor promenade, and the City invoked the Recreational Use Statute.
The Court held the statute did not shield the City — but not because she happened to be commuting home from work rather than riding for fun. The Court specifically took the visitor’s subjective motive out of the equation: what matters is "what the user was doing on the property, but not why." What defeated the statute was that the City had built the promenade into its transportation infrastructure, and in doing so took on the ordinary common-law duties that come with that, even though biking is also a recreational activity.
DeVaughn applies that reasoning to commercial property. The court laid out the inquiry a Maryland trial court must run:
- Look at the area where the person was actually injured — not the property as a whole — and decide what the owner intended that particular area to be used for.
- Ask whether the injured person’s use of that area was consistent with that purpose, even if the activity could also be described as recreational.
Applied to a cemetery, a court has to distinguish between parts of the grounds. An area devoted to a walking or biking path, or a section set aside for viewing historically significant graves, may well fall under the statute. But the area around a plot the owner sold to a family, where the owner expects that family to visit, is a commercial part of a commercial enterprise. Reading the statute StoneMor’s way, the court said, would stretch it past its purpose and let a business avoid liability for injuries on its commercial property just by also opening the place to the public for recreation.
Be clear about what this ruling did and didn’t do
Ms. DeVaughn has not won her case and has not been awarded anything. The Appellate Court reversed the dismissal and sent the case back so the trial court can apply the correct test — noting that her complaint says little about where in the cemetery she fell beyond "walking around her child’s gravesite," which she may need to amend to plead. StoneMor may still prevail.
What she won is the right to have the case decided under the right standard, instead of on the single fact that she walked in free of charge.
The limits the statute keeps open
Even when the statute applies, it is not absolute. Section 5-1106(a) preserves liability for a willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, and for injuries to a person the owner charged to enter the land.
How Maryland, D.C., and Virginia compare
| Question | Maryland | District of Columbia | Virginia |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a recreational use statute? | Yes — Md. Code, Nat. Res. §§ 5-1101 to 5-1109 | No counterpart in the D.C. Code; ordinary premises liability rules govern | Yes — Va. Code § 29.1-509 |
| What use does it cover? | Any "recreational pursuit," plus listed educational uses including observing historical, archaeological, or scientific sites | Not applicable | An enumerated list — hunting, fishing, camping, boating, hiking, bicycle riding, sightseeing, rock climbing, horseback riding and others — plus "any other recreational use" |
| Does charging a fee defeat the protection? | Yes — no protection where the owner charged the person who entered (§ 5-1106(a)(2)) | Not applicable | Yes — no protection where the landowner receives a fee for use of the premises (§ 29.1-509(D)) |
| What conduct is never protected? | Willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition (§ 5-1106(a)(1)) | Not applicable | Gross negligence, or willful or malicious failure to guard or warn (§ 29.1-509(D)) |
| Does the visitor’s reason for being there matter? | No — courts look at what the area was made available for and what the person was doing, not why (Wallace, DeVaughn) | Not applicable | The statute is written around listed activities rather than the visitor’s motive |
| Fault rule that still applies | Contributory negligence | Contributory negligence, with a statutory exception for pedestrians, cyclists and scooter riders | Contributory negligence |
Two notes. All three jurisdictions still follow contributory negligence, so even a strong premises claim can be defeated by a small share of fault — with a narrow carve-out in the District for pedestrians, cyclists, and scooter riders that we covered in an earlier post. And Virginia’s statute is built around a list of specific activities, while Maryland’s sweeps in "any recreational pursuit" — which is why the where question DeVaughn emphasizes carries so much weight in Maryland.
What this means if you were hurt in Maryland
A few practical takeaways.
Free admission is not a magic word. If an insurer or a defense lawyer tells you there is no claim because you weren’t charged to enter, that is an incomplete statement of Maryland law. It is one factor, not the answer.
Where you fell may matter more than why you were there. Photograph the exact spot, and photograph it in relation to its surroundings — the parking area, the path, the building, the plot. Under the two-step test, the character of that specific location can decide whether the owner owed you a duty at all. Your own reason for visiting, by contrast, has been deliberately removed from the analysis.
Commercial property is not converted into immune property just because the public can walk in. Cemeteries, campuses, and shopping and event venues often invite the public broadly. DeVaughn says that invitation does not blanket the whole parcel in immunity.
Move quickly. Most Maryland personal injury claims must be filed within three years, and claims against government entities carry their own shorter notice requirements. Conditions on the ground get repaired, and the evidence goes with them.
Talk to a lawyer who handles these cases in Maryland, D.C., and Virginia
Premises cases turn on details that are easy to lose — the exact location, the condition of the ground, what the area was being used for, who owned and maintained it. If you were injured on someone else’s property in Maryland, the District, or Virginia, it is worth having those questions looked at early.
Posey Lebowitz PLLC handles personal injury and civil litigation in all three. Call us at (202) 524-0123 or use our contact form for a free consultation.
This article is general information, not legal advice about your case.
