Fields v. City of Newport

Landowners who grant public access to their land for recreational use are immune from liability for injury that “arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes.” ORS 105.682(1). “The activity of crossing a parcel of land, by itself, is not a recreational purpose.” Liberty v. State Dept. of Transportation, 342 Or 11, 21-22 (2006).

Plaintiff appealed a judgment that dismissed her personal injury claim against City of Newport (“City”) after she was injured on City’s land.  Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in City’s favor on a recreational immunity defense.  Plaintiff claimed she did not use the trail for a recreational purpose, but rather to cross over to the beach, which invalidated City’s immunity.  In response, City argued that state law immunized them from Plaintiff’s claim because Plaintiff’s primary motive for using the trail was recreational because she walked with her dogs and a friend on the trail. Landowners who grant public access to their land for recreational use are immune from liability for injury that “arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes.” ORS 105.682(1).  “The activity of crossing a parcel of land, by itself, is not a recreational purpose.” Liberty v. State Dept. of Transportation, 342 Or 11, 21-22 (2006). The Court found that because material questions of Plaintiff’s purpose in using the trail remain, it was error to grant City’s motion as a matter of law.  Reversed and remanded.