Property Rights

ORS 105.682
Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products

(1)

Except as provided by subsection (2) of this section, and subject to the provisions of ORS 105.688 (Applicability of immunities from liability for owner of land), an owner of land is not liable in contract or tort for any personal injury, death or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products when the owner of land either directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products. The limitation on liability provided by this section applies if the principal purpose for entry upon the land is for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products, and is not affected if the injury, death or damage occurs while the person entering land is engaging in activities other than the use of the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products.

(2)

This section does not limit the liability of an owner of land for intentional injury or damage to a person coming onto land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products. [1995 c.456 §3; 2009 c.532 §4]

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 that is not generally available to public 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)

Law Review Citations

89 OLR 725 (2010)

§§ 105.672 to 105.696

Law Review Citations

89 OLR 725 (2010)

§§ 105.672 to 105.700

Notes of Decisions

Where plaintiff was injured in City of Portland public park, individual city employees who were responsible for repairing, maintaining and operating improvements in park, which is land made available to public for recreational purposes, are not "owners" as used in Oregon Public Use of Lands Act, and so are not immune from liability for negligence. Johnson v. Gibson, 358 Or 624, 369 P3d 1151 (2016)

Chapter 105

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Private process server in a forcible entry and detainer action, (1975) Vol 37, p 869

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS