Natebishop3
Don't tread on me!
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 94,169
- Likes
- 57,378
- Points
- 113
https://archive.ph/mf5z7
'Tough spot': Oregon Coast towns close trails after lawsuit puts legal shield in jeopardy
Fields sued the City of Newport, claiming the bridge was “unreasonably hazardous” because it used “materials that become unusually slippery, but do not appear slippery.” The lawsuit also said the city had failed to apply anti-slip measures to the bridge surface and hadn’t provided warning of the conditions, according to court documents.
“As a result of defendants’ negligence, plaintiff was caused physical pain, anguish, and suffering,” the lawsuit said. Fields asked for upward of $345,000 in economic and non-economic damages.
Newport’s lawyers responded that the city was immune from the lawsuit because Fields was using the trail for a recreational purpose and the city was protected under recreational immunity. Lincoln County Circuit Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the city.
Court of Appeals debates walking versus hiking, reverses decision
Fields appealed the decision, arguing her purpose on the trail was not principally recreational. She noted walking and dog walking are not expressly included in the recreational immunity statute, and while hiking is included, “using the trail to get to the beach is not the same as hiking on the trail.”
The court debated the definition of walking versus hiking and ultimately decided “there remains an issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s principal purpose in walking on the city’s trail was recreational or whether it was simply to go to and from the beach.”
Fields also argued Oregon law only extends recreational immunity to unimproved access trails, and because the city improved, designed, and maintained the Ocean to Bay Trail for the purpose of accessing the beach, the city is not entitled to recreational immunity.
The appeals court ruled in Fields' favor, writing “because the trail on which plaintiff fell was an improved trail … the city’s entitlement to immunity depends on the resolution of those factual issues by a jury."
The case was sent back to Lincoln County to likely go before a jury.
Oregon Supreme Court refuses to hear Newport's appeal
Newport, joined by groups such as the League of Oregon Cities, asked the Oregon Supreme Court to overrule the decision and restore recreational immunity.
If the ruling was allowed to stand, they argued, “landowners must decide if making their land available for recreational purposes is worth the risk of effectively losing access to the immunity by having to litigate through trial whatever subjective beliefs an injured plaintiff asserts their principal purpose was.”
The court in October declined to review the decision.
Insurance company recommends cities close trails
In the wake of the appeals court ruling, CIS Oregon issued the following recommendations:
1. Improved trails that are used to access a recreational area should be closed. This especially includes trails, walkways and stairs used to access bodies of water, such as the ocean, lakes, rivers, streams and reservoirs.
2. Consider closing unimproved trails, because the subjective intent of the user can now nullify recreational immunity, which means if someone is injured on an unimproved trail, the city or county may find itself facing a costly jury trial to determine the injured person’s intent in using the trail.
'Tough spot': Oregon Coast towns close trails after lawsuit puts legal shield in jeopardy
Fields sued the City of Newport, claiming the bridge was “unreasonably hazardous” because it used “materials that become unusually slippery, but do not appear slippery.” The lawsuit also said the city had failed to apply anti-slip measures to the bridge surface and hadn’t provided warning of the conditions, according to court documents.
“As a result of defendants’ negligence, plaintiff was caused physical pain, anguish, and suffering,” the lawsuit said. Fields asked for upward of $345,000 in economic and non-economic damages.
Newport’s lawyers responded that the city was immune from the lawsuit because Fields was using the trail for a recreational purpose and the city was protected under recreational immunity. Lincoln County Circuit Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the city.
Court of Appeals debates walking versus hiking, reverses decision
Fields appealed the decision, arguing her purpose on the trail was not principally recreational. She noted walking and dog walking are not expressly included in the recreational immunity statute, and while hiking is included, “using the trail to get to the beach is not the same as hiking on the trail.”
The court debated the definition of walking versus hiking and ultimately decided “there remains an issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s principal purpose in walking on the city’s trail was recreational or whether it was simply to go to and from the beach.”
Fields also argued Oregon law only extends recreational immunity to unimproved access trails, and because the city improved, designed, and maintained the Ocean to Bay Trail for the purpose of accessing the beach, the city is not entitled to recreational immunity.
The appeals court ruled in Fields' favor, writing “because the trail on which plaintiff fell was an improved trail … the city’s entitlement to immunity depends on the resolution of those factual issues by a jury."
The case was sent back to Lincoln County to likely go before a jury.
Oregon Supreme Court refuses to hear Newport's appeal
Newport, joined by groups such as the League of Oregon Cities, asked the Oregon Supreme Court to overrule the decision and restore recreational immunity.
If the ruling was allowed to stand, they argued, “landowners must decide if making their land available for recreational purposes is worth the risk of effectively losing access to the immunity by having to litigate through trial whatever subjective beliefs an injured plaintiff asserts their principal purpose was.”
The court in October declined to review the decision.
Insurance company recommends cities close trails
In the wake of the appeals court ruling, CIS Oregon issued the following recommendations:
1. Improved trails that are used to access a recreational area should be closed. This especially includes trails, walkways and stairs used to access bodies of water, such as the ocean, lakes, rivers, streams and reservoirs.
2. Consider closing unimproved trails, because the subjective intent of the user can now nullify recreational immunity, which means if someone is injured on an unimproved trail, the city or county may find itself facing a costly jury trial to determine the injured person’s intent in using the trail.
