Recreational Immunity

[Water]

https://yachatsnews.com/coastal-cities- ... port-case/

Interesting case from Newport with the potential to affect a lot of recreation around urban areas. (Unlikely to impact stuff in wilderness or in state parks).

[adamschneider]

It's not just urban areas. There are a lot of trails out there that cross private land but where the landowners have been OK with it because of the Recreational Immunity thing. (Abiqua Falls comes to mind as a famous example, because the owners posted a sign about it.)

If the court ruling stands, it sounds like they're going to make a distinction between a trail that goes between two "non-recreational" locations vs. a trail that's "just for fun"?

(Also, why is accessing the beach to play with your dogs not considered "recreational"?)

[retired jerry]

weird that there'd be a distinction between a recreational trail and a trail used for transit

somebody died crossing the seasonal bridge over the Sandy River on the way to Ramona Falls and they sued.

it seems a stretch to sue the landowner for such an injury or death

[adamschneider]

These are the laws:

• ORS 105.676. Public policy
• ORS 105.682. Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products
• ORS 105.688. Applicability of immunities from liability for owner of land

I think the legal issues get slightly thornier when a trail is "improved." That is, you're in the clear if people were just bushwhacking around your property... but if you build a bridge, there are expectations of safety, and if it collapses, then you might be in trouble. (Word is that's why they didn't replace the seasonal Sandy River bridge.)