Relating to landowner immunity.
SB 179 revises Oregon’s landowner immunity laws, primarily by updating how liability protections apply to trails, rights of way, and recreational access areas. The bill amends statutes governing immunity for landowners and local governments when people use land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting, or harvesting special forest products. It also updates definitions related to “charge,” “owner,” “recreational purposes,” and “unimproved right of way,” and clarifies when immunity applies even if a landowner charges for certain uses.
A major part of the bill expands and clarifies immunity for trails and structures in public easements or unimproved rights of way, including in large cities, and allows other local governments to opt into similar liability limits by ordinance or other regulation. The bill also specifies that immunity does not apply in cases of gross negligence, reckless or intentional misconduct, strict liability, or to compensated providers of services in certain circumstances. It further amends the rules for when charging fees for recreation, gardening, woodcutting, or special forest product harvesting removes immunity, including specific thresholds for gardening and woodcutting and notice requirements for partial-use charges.
The bill’s impact is to strengthen and refine Oregon’s recreational use and landowner immunity framework, reducing negligence exposure for public and private landowners, local governments, and certain nonprofit trail builders and volunteers. It also preserves liability in more serious misconduct cases while making it easier for landowners to allow public access without losing statutory protections. The bill applies to actions for personal injury, death, or property damage filed on or after its effective date.
The overall sentiment around SB 179 appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate committee 6-0, the Senate floor 30-0, the House committee 7-0, and the House floor 48-0, indicating broad bipartisan agreement. No committee transcript concerns were provided, and the unanimous votes suggest the bill was viewed as a technical or clarifying update to existing law rather than a contentious policy change.
The main points of contention, based on the text itself, would likely center on the scope of immunity and the balance between encouraging public access and preserving injured parties’ ability to sue. The bill specifically extends protections to cities, abutting landowners, and nonprofit trail volunteers, and it narrows liability only for ordinary negligence while preserving claims for gross negligence and intentional misconduct. Another possible issue is the treatment of fee-based access and the new thresholds for gardening and woodcutting, which may matter to landowners, recreation users, and local governments managing trails and access rights.
SB 179 amends ORS 105.668, 105.672, and 105.688 and repeals section 11, chapter 64, Oregon Laws 2024. The changes refine Oregon’s recreational immunity and landowner-liability statutes by expanding protections for trail use in public easements and unimproved rights of way, clarifying fee-based exceptions, and allowing local governments outside the largest cities to adopt similar liability limits. It affects cities, counties, other local governments, private landowners, nonprofit trail organizations, volunteers, and people using land for recreation, gardening, woodcutting, or harvesting special forest products.
The bill appears to have been received very positively and with little or no opposition. It moved through both chambers with unanimous committee and floor votes, suggesting broad support across party lines. The absence of recorded dissent or committee transcript controversy indicates the measure was likely seen as a practical clarification of existing landowner immunity law rather than a divisive policy shift.
Any substantive contention would likely involve the breadth of immunity granted to landowners and local governments, especially in large cities and on trails in public easements or unimproved rights of way. Potential critics could focus on whether the bill limits injured users’ ability to bring negligence claims, while supporters would emphasize that it preserves claims for gross negligence, reckless, wanton, intentional, and strict-liability conduct. Another possible point of debate is the fee structure and notice rules for recreational access, gardening, woodcutting, and special forest products, which determine when immunity is retained or lost.