Because the evidence relating to the application of recreational use immunity conflicts on material points, the facts must be determined by the fact finder, and summary judgment is precluded. III. A landowner’s recreational use immunity does not depend on the plaintiff’s activity at the time of injury ¶40 As a final note, there is some suggestion that the application of recreational use immunity turns on whether Camicia was cycling home from work or merely for pleasure when she was injured. We reject this view as insufficiently protective of landowners who open their land for recreational purposes. Where the land at issue is shown to be recreational, immunity does not depend on whether the plaintiff was actually engaged in recreation at the time of injury. See Gaeta, 54 Wn. App. at 609 (<HOLDING>); Howard v. United States, 181 F.3d
holding that so long as seattle city light opened up the diablo dam to the public for recreation immunity applied despite a contractual provision compelling it to open land for public recreational purposes holding contractors could not claim recreational immunity because they had no continuing authority to determine whether the land should be open to the public holding an initial four dollar fee allowing reentry during the course of the patrons stay permitted the use of a vehicle in the park and did not constitute a charge for the recreational use of the park holding that whether the public invitee may have some commercial purpose in mind was irrelevant to recreational immunity instead by opening up the lands for recreational use without a fee the landowner brought itself under the protection of the immunity statute recognizing that a landowner cancontrol who uses his land for recreational purposes and that sjuch discretion should not result in the forfeiture of the immunity that thehrus provides