Stedman v. Department of Forestry

The fee for ATV registration is not a ‘charge’” under ORS 105.672(1) “paid ‘in return’ for the use of” particular land that would preclude recreational immunity under 105.688(3).

Stedman appealed “a judgment dismissing his negligence claim” after the trial court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment rooted in recreational immunity under ORS 105.682(1). On appeal, Stedman argued recreational immunity was inapplicable because he purchased an ATV operating permit, which believed constituted “a charge for permission to use the land,” thus precluding immunity under ORS 105.688(3). “The fee for ATV registration is not a ‘charge’” under ORS 105.672(1) “paid ‘in return’ for the use of” particular land that would preclude recreational immunity under 105.688(3). The Court found that for purposes of disposing of recreational immunity, an exchange of money, having a “quid pro quo character,” for permission to use particular land is necessary. The Court noted that ATV registration fees are “designed to cover the costs * * * for issuing or renewing permits,” and not linked to any specific state park or even state lands as a whole, as registration is necessary wherever ATV use is authorized, including, inter alia, privately and federally owned lands. Because Stedman did not pay for using the state land upon which he was injured, but rather for owning an ATV, recreational immunity applies, and the trial court did not err. Affirmed.