McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Land Use
  • Date Filed: 08-01-2018
  • Case #: A159931
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J. for the Court; DeHoog, P.J.; & Aoyagi, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 105.682, “a landowner is entitled to recreational immunity from liability for harm resulting from the recreational use of the owner’s land when . . . the owner ‘directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes.’” To “permit” is to say that, “an owner must have the authority to make a volitional decision whether or not to allow recreational use on the land in question.” Ortega v. Martin, 293 Or App 180, . . . P3d . . . (2018).

Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the State. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s determination that Plaintiff was barred from bringing a claim against the State because the State had recreational immunity. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the recreational immunity statute did not apply to the State because it did not have the authority to “permit” or not permit someone from using Lake Billy Chinook recreationally. In response, the State argued that the word “permit” has a broad definition and should read as “facilitat[ing] public recreation, mak[ing] public recreation possible when it otherwise would not be or declines to restrict recreation as fully as it permissibly could.” Under ORS 105.682, “a landowner is entitled to recreational immunity from liability for harm resulting from the recreational use of the owner’s land when . . . the owner ‘directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes.’” To “permit” is to say that, “an owner must have the authority to make a volitional decision whether or not to allow recreational use on the land in question.” Ortega v. Martin, 293 Or App 180, . . . P3d . . . (2018). The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment on the grounds of recreational immunity to the State because the State had not sufficiently demonstrated that it had the authority to permit or not permit the public from using Lake Billy Chinook recreationally. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search


Back to Top