Authors: Jesse Richardson and Tiffany Lashmet
In a recent ruling from the bench in a Virginia Circuit Court case, the judge made a surprising finding on the signage requirements under the Virginia Agritourism Activity Act. The language in the Virginia Act is identical to the language in many similar acts across the country. The court found that to meet the notice requirements under the Act, a separate sign must be placed at each separate agritourism activity, necessitating dozens of signs or more in many instances.
In Angel v. Leesburg Animal Park, LLC, Case No.: CL23005507-00 (Loudoun County, Virginia Circuit Court 2026), the plaintiff filed suit after injuring her hand on a slide on the farm. The defendant raised the defense of the Virginia Agritourism Activity Act. However, the plaintiff argued that the signage, one sign inside the gift shop and another at the outside entrance, failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Act. Instead, the plaintiff claimed, a sign should be placed at each and every separate agritourism activity. In this particular case, more than a dozen signs would be required.
The Virginia Act, like many others, states that, “[e]very agritourism professional shall post and maintain signs that contain the notice specified [in this act]. The sign shall be placed in a clearly visible location at the entrance to the agritourism location and at the site of the agritourism activity.” Virginia Code Ann. § 3.2-6402. In a March 10, 2026, ruling from the bench, the judge agreed with the plaintiff and ruled that the defendant’s failure to post signs at each separate agritourism activity disqualified it from the protection of the act.
Although this ruling surprised many agricultural lawyers, at least one other case appears to agree with this ruling. In Bayne v. Carleton Farm, Inc., 25 Wash. App.2d 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). In 2023, the Washington Court of Appeals determined that, because there was no evidence showing where the sign was placed, there was also no proof that the sign was intended for individuals participating in the specific agritourism activity (a slide). Bayne at *6. The language in the Washington State statute (RCWA 4.24.835) is identical to the language in the Virginia statute.
The rulings in the Virginia and Washington State cases indicate that agritourism operators must place a separate sign at the entrance to the facility and at the location of each agritourism activity. The Virginia case is binding only in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia. The Washington Court of Appeals opinion is binding only in Washington State. However, the reasoning of these opinions may lead courts in other states to rule similarly. Agritourism operators should consider placing the required warning signs at each agritourism activity to ensure that the state act protects the activity. As one agricultural lawyer stated, “signs are cheap, lawsuits are not.”
Richardson, Jesse, and Tiffany Lash met. “Signage Requirements Under Agritourism Liability Acts.” Southern Ag Today 6(15.5). April 10, 2026. Permalink
