Ortega v. Martin

“The immunity provided by ORS 105.682 applies only to an owner of land who ‘directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes.’” ORS 105.682. “To be entitled to recreational immunity, an owner of an interest in land must have made a volitional decision to open the land to the public for recreational use.” Landis v. Limbaugh, 282 Or App 284, 291, 385 P3d 1139, 1143 (2016).

The State appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment on the ground of recreational immunity. The State assigned error to the trial court’s conclusion that the State was not entitled to recreational immunity under ORS 105.682. On appeal, the State argued that the recreational immunity statute barred Plaintiff from recovering damages against the State because Plaintiff had engaged in a recreational activity at the time of his injury. In response, Plaintiff argued that the ocean and ocean shore are public trust lands, and that the State held its interest in the land in trust for the public and that he could not have been “permitted” to engage in the use of the ocean that led to his injury because the State lacked authority to prohibit the public’s use of the ocean for recreational purposes. “The immunity provided by ORS 105.682 applies only to an owner of land who ‘directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes.’” ORS 105.682. “To be entitled to recreational immunity, an owner of an interest in land must have made a volitional decision to open the land to the public for recreational use.” Landis v. Limbaugh, 282 Or App 284, 291, 385 P3d 1139, 1143 (2016). The Court of Appeals held that the State had not disputed that it lacked the authority to make that sort of volitional decision to allow or disallow recreational use of the ocean, and therefore, the State was not entitled to recreational immunity. Affirmed.