Attorney, POS Director - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

which the accident occurred was provided with lifeguards. There are no Oregon appellate cases which directly address the issue of municipal liability in connection with injuries in natural bodies of water. Oregon has, however, enacted a recreational use statute which further limits potential liability. ORS 105.655 to 105.680 is intended to "encourage owners of land to make their land available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon . . ." ORS 105.660. ORS 105.665(1) provides: "(1) An owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the land safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity on the land to persons entering thereon for any such purpose." ORS 105.675(1) extends liability to a landowner for "willful, wanton and reckless failure of an owner of land to guard or warn against a known dangerous structure or other improvement or a known dangerous activity on the land." And ORS 105.675(2) indicates that the limited liability set by ORS 105.665 does not apply where the landowner charges a fee for use of the land. The Oregon Recreational Use Law has been construed to apply to public land. Denton v. L.W. Vail Co., 23 Or App 28, 541 P2d 511 (1975);. O'Neal v. United States, 814 F2d 1285 (9th Cir. 1987). While other jurisdictions have questioned the application of recreational use statutes to municipalities, see Hovet v. City of Bagley, supra; Goodson v. City of Racine, 61 Wis.2d 554, 213 N.W.2d 16 (1973), for now the Oregon statute limits municipal liability for injuries occurring on land adjacent or contiguous to "bodies of water (and) watercourses." ORS 105.655(2). Under current Oregon law, therefore, a municipality has no duty of care and no duty to warn in connection with land adjacent to bodies of water and watercourses, absent a showing of willful failure to warn against a known dangerous structure or improvement, or a dangerous activity undertaken by the landowner. 3 See also, Pasierb v. Hanover Park District, 103 I11. App.32 806, 59 I11. Dec. 461, 431 N.E.2d 1218 (1981) (Drowning in snow covered creek; municipality held to have duty to warn of hidden danger.); Hovet v. City of Bagley, 325 N.W. 2d 813 (Minn. 1982) (Recreational use statute does not apply to public land; court assumes municipality has potential liability.) 4 The issue of municipal liability may also be affected by the fact that the State of Oregon holds title to land below the high water mark in the beds of navigable waters. Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel, 283 Or 147, 582 P2d 1352 (1978). To the extent that liability for personal is derived from a duty of care premised on the ownership of land, the municipality arguably has no liability for accidents which occur beyond the high water mark on navigable waters. This theory has not,