Relating to inherently dangerous sporting activities; declaring an emergency.
Summary
SB 614 would authorize operators of inherently dangerous sporting activities to require participants to sign an anticipatory release of claims before taking part. The bill defines these activities broadly, expressly including alpine skiing and nordic skiing, and defines an “operator” as a person or facility offering the activity. The release may cover claims arising from the operator’s negligence and from unreasonable conditions created by the operator that are not inherent to the activity.
The bill also specifies that such a release is not unconscionable, but it does not allow operators to require participants to waive claims for intentional acts or gross negligence. In addition, the measure applies to releases executed before, on, and after the effective date, and it contains an emergency clause so it would take effect immediately upon passage.
Impact
SB 614 would change Oregon law by expressly validating pre-injury liability waivers for inherently dangerous sporting activities and limiting challenges based on unconscionability for those releases. It would affect operators of ski areas and other similar recreational facilities, as well as patrons who participate in these activities, by strengthening the enforceability of liability waivers while preserving claims for intentional misconduct and gross negligence.
Sentiment
There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll calls. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to reflect a pro-liability-limitation approach favoring recreational operators, with a narrower carve-out preserving claims for the most serious misconduct.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the scope of liability protection for operators versus the rights of injured participants. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to reduce litigation risk and provide certainty for businesses offering high-risk sports, while opponents may argue that it weakens consumer protections by allowing waivers of negligence claims and claims tied to unsafe conditions. The bill’s explicit statement that the release is not unconscionable, along with retroactive application to existing releases, may also draw scrutiny.