The statute has also been held to apply to both real 

 and personal property. St. ex rel. Tucker v. District 

 Court , IsT'm 202, 468 P. 2d 773 (1970). 



The Idaho Supreme Court has held that a similar statute 

 does not violate due process, Corey v. State , 703 P. 2d 

 685 (1985) , and does not deny equal protection of the 

 law, Johnson v. Sunshine Mining Co. Inc. , 684 P. 2d 268 

 (Id. 1984) . 



The situation involved in fee hunting would confer upon 

 the hunter the status of an invitee. An invitee is one 

 who is invited onto the owner's property in connection 

 with business, or in which there is a mutual benefit 

 for the parties. The Montana Supreme Court has held 

 under the general rule that the duty owed the business 

 invitee is to exercise ordinary care to have the 

 premises reasonably safe or to warn the invitee of any 

 hidden or lurking dangers; the invitor is not, however, 

 an insurer against all accidents and injuries to 

 invitees. Scott v. Robson , 182 M 528, 597 P. 2d 1150 

 (1979), citing Dunham v. Southside National Bank of 

 Missoula , 169 466, 548 P. 2d 1383 (1976); Hackley v. 

 Waldorf Hoerner Paper Co. , 149 M 286, 425 P. 2d 712 

 (1967); and Cassaday v. City of Billings , 135 M 390, 

 240 P. 2d 509 (1959) . 



Recently the Montana Supreme Court has relied upon 

 27-1-701, MCA, to remove the distinctions between the 

 classes of people using private land and the duty owed 

 them. Section 27-1-701, MCA, provides: 



27-1-701. Liability for negligence as well 

 as willful acts. Everyone is responsible not 

 only for the results of his willful acts but 

 also for an injury occasioned to another by 



