Ortega v. Martin

ORS 105.682 limits an owner's liability for injuries on land if the owner "directly or indirectly permits" the public to use the land for recreational purposes; "an owner can 'directly or indirectly permit' the use of its land for the purpose of the recreational immunity statutes, even if the public already has a right to use the land for that purpose." McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept., 366 Or 452, 473 (2020).

The Oregon Supreme Court remanded Ortega v. Martin on the issue of whether the State was entitled to recreational immunity under ORS 105.682.  In the original suit, Ortega sustained severe injuries in a collision with a dory boat while surfing in Pacific City. The State argued that because of statutory obligations, the State allowed recreational use on the shores and although the State can’t fully restrict the use, it could limit use. ORS 105.682 limits an owner's liability for injuries on land if the owner "directly or indirectly permits" the public to use the land for recreational purposes; "an owner can 'directly or indirectly permit' the use of its land for the purpose of the recreational immunity statutes, even if the public already has a right to use the land for that purpose." McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept., 366 Or 452, 473 (2020).The court held that the legislature's intent regarding blanket immunity was to waive the state's sovereign immunity under the Oregon Tort Claims Act and did not grant recreational immunity as a matter of law under ORS 105.682. Therefore, the state was not entitled to recreational immunity as a legal contention. Affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal.