Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products
Source:
Section 105.682 — Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors105.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Person maintaining and operating improvements on land is “owner of land.” Brewer v. State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 167 Or App 173, 2 P3d 418 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Immunity from liability for owner permitting “any” person to use land applies only if permission is granted to person as member of public generally rather than as specific invitee. Conant v. Stroup, 183 Or App 270, 51 P3d 1263 (2002)
Immunity from liability for injury arising from use of land is not limited to injuries for which land is mechanism of injury. Conant v. Stroup, 183 Or App 270, 51 P3d 1263 (2002)
Land made available to public for recreational purposes includes land developed for use as city park. Waggoner v. City of Woodburn, 196 Or App 715, 103 P3d 648 (2004)
Immunity granted to city landowner for injuries arising out of recreational use of city park does not violate plaintiff’s right to remedy under section 10, Article I of Oregon Constitution. Schlesinger v. City of Portland, 200 Or App 593, 116 P3d 239 (2005)
Use of land to gain access to recreational site on adjoining property is not use of land for recreational purposes. Liberty v. State Dept. of Transportation, 342 Or 11, 148 P3d 909 (2006)
“Recreational purposes” includes recreational activities that involve travel. Kelly v. Hochberg, 231 Or App 155, 217 P3d 699 (2009), aff’d 349 Or 267, 243 P3d 62 (2010)
Scope of recreational immunity under this section is determined by volition of landowner to make land available for recreational or other specified uses; therefore, county was not immune from liability for plaintiff who was injured while jogging on ordinary sidewalk along city street, not on lands that county had decided to make available for recreational use. Landis v. Limbaugh, 282 Or App 284, 385 P3d 1139 (2016)
Fee for winter recreation parking permit or other parking fee of $15 or less per day is not charge for recreational use of park and therefore does not bar state’s recreational immunity. McCormick v. State, 308 Or App 220, 482 P3d 187 (2020)
If owner of land permits use of land for recreation by facilitating use, recreational immunity is available even if public already has right to recreate on land. McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept., 366 Or 452, 466 P3d 10 (2020)
State laws encouraging accessibility to, or permitting public’s recreational use of, ocean and ocean shore do not entitle state to recreational immunity as matter of law. Ortega v. Martin, 313 Or App 252, 497 P3d 314 (2021), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
89 OLR 725 (2010)