By GARRET JAROS/YachatsNews
A lawsuit against the city of Newport has caused a ripple effect across Oregon that has municipalities checking their hole card to decide whether they want to heed the advice of their insurer and close public trails or gamble on a legislative fix before their hand is called.
“On July 6, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion affectively ending recreational immunity for improved trails,” according to an assessment by CIS Oregon, the insurance provider for the majority of cities in Oregon.
Based on the court’s ruling, CIS advised cities in early November to close improved trails that provide access to recreational areas and consider closing unimproved trails.
Recreational immunity refers to an Oregon law that says landowners are not liable for injury, death, or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes.
The lawsuit that started it all was brought by Nicole Fields, who had been walking Jan. 5, 2019 with a friend and their dogs on Agate Beach. She left the beach via the city of Newport’s improved Ocean to Bay Trail, then slipped and fell on a wet footbridge breaking her lower left leg. She filed suit against Newport in 2020 claiming it was negligent in maintaining the bridge and not posting warning signs.
Newport responded that it was immune under recreational immunity. But Fields claimed she was simply transiting the trail and not recreating.
A Lincoln County circuit court judge ruled in favor of the city, citing the longstanding protections of recreational immunity. Fields appealed the decision, saying the court could not conclude her “principal purpose” was recreation if her intent was using the trail for a different purpose.
The Oregon Court of Appeals decided there is a factual dispute as to whether Fields was using the trail while recreating or simply to access the beach and that a trial court and jury would need to make that determination. Newport asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review and reverse the the appeals court decision.
It was joined in the request by the city of Medford, the League of Oregon Cities, the Association of Oregon Counties, the Special Districts Association of Oregon, and the Oregon Recreation and Park Association.
Newport argued that “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,” according to CIS’s assessment.
But the supreme court declined to review the appeals court decision, which CIS told cities amounts to a “de facto endorsement” to strike down recreational immunity.
Local response
Cities in Lincoln County as well as the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department are handling concerns raised by the appeals court decision and the insurers’ subsequent advice differently. While all have expressed a belief the Oregon Legislature will step in to remedy the situation when it meets in February, only one city – Waldport — has opted to close a trail based on CIS’s suggestion.
Waldport
“The city has faith that legislatively the recreational immunity issue, which affects the entire state, will be addressed,” said Waldport city manager Dann Cutter. “The minor inconvenience of closing these trails, conveniently in the rainy winter season, is a minor price to safeguard the city’s potential exposure to liability.
“Ignoring CIS risks them not covering a potential loss or litigation process,” he said. “With limited park’s budgets, why risk the taxpayer’s money by ignoring such a simple short-term solution. We’ll revisit it all by the time spring rolls around.”
Waldport will be closing the John Maré Woodland Trail that goes from the softball fields in the heart of town to the top of Crestline Drive near the skate park. While it is a recreational trail, it could also be used for transit, which makes it susceptible to a lawsuit based on the court of appeals decision that use may depend on the intent of the person on the trail.
The Waziyata Trail at the end of Waziyata Street, which has been closed because of a treacherous stretch, Cutter said, will remain closed even if repairs are made because it too could be used for transit and not just recreation. Alternatively, the Kittel-Kaffman Trail – known as the Lint Slough Trail — will remain open because it terminates after a half-mile so could not be used for anything but recreation.
“Those are the three trails that we have in town,” Cutter said. “There may be other pathways or community trails that people have created over time but those are the only three recognized trails.”
Beach access sites in Waldport fall under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Cutter expects and will “push hard” for a fix during the Legislature’s short February session, which he believes will result in an end to the situation within six months at most.
“And that’s why I’m closing these — knowing that we’re heading into the rainy, dark season where these trails will honestly not get utilized that much,” Cutter said. “And that I am not hurting the citizens of Waldport dramatically by protecting them from potential liability for closing these while the legislature comes up with a fix.”
Waldport pays CIS Oregon $72,000 a year for insurance, he said, which has been increasing 15 to 20 percent a year.
Yachats
“Currently we are not planning on doing anything,” said Yachats interim city manager Rick Sant. “I think there is an assumption that the Legislature is going to jump in and pass some laws that will protect cities from that kind of thing.”
The city has lots of local trails maintained mostly by a robust group of volunteers.
The legal advice Yachats is getting is to just “hold off” Sant said. The fact that Waldport is getting a different opinion demonstrates how things like this can be problematic and take a while to sort through.
“I’m surprised Waldport would do that,” Sant said. “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. I understand why they’re doing it. But Waldport is the first one I’ve heard actually doing something. It doesn’t hurt to be cautious I guess.”
Following the advice of CIS would mean closing the 804 Trail in the city as well as parts of the Amanda Trail and others in town because it could be argued they are used for purposes other than recreation and thus not covered by recreational immunity.
Newport
“The steps that we are taking at this point is really conducting an inventory of the various formal and informal trails that people access across city property,” Newport city manager Spencer Nebel told YachatsNews. “And we haven’t taken any action to either sign them, close them or take other steps other than what we normally do and that’s reviewing them for any potential problems or hazards.”
In regards to the Legislature, because the upcoming session is short, it is difficult to determine what will come out of it, Nebel said.
“But certainly, this is a really critical issue and the fix is relatively simple to clarify recreational immunity,” Nebel said. “But again, if you interpret this literally it could have a significant impact on property owners, not just cities. This could impact private property owners as well who have allowed access across their property for recreational purposes.
“And so I think it is something that definitely needs a legislative fix in order to address the questions that came up through the state court of appeals.”
Because of the ongoing litigation, Nebel said he could not comment on whether CIS Oregon is footing the bill for the city’s defense in the Fields case.
All cities pay for insurance and as long as the activity is covered by the insurance policy, then the insurance company is responsible for those lawsuits, he said. But when premiums are set for cities, the basis for whether there is a potential risk or not is key to what those future premiums will be.
“And if the recreational immunity is impacted by this court decision, that has an impact on claims that insurance companies would have to pay and that’s going to have an impact on premiums that cities pay,” Nebel said. “In the past … when there were liability questions about certain things like skate parks, they basically stopped insuring cities for those kinds of activities.”
Nothing like that has happened in Newport’s case. But Nebel said CIS is basically alerting everyone that the court of appeals decision could bring changes to the operation of trails.
Depoe Bay
Depoe Bay is following CIS’s recommendations by checking its trails to see if any work needs to be done but is not closing any, said city recorder Kim Wollenburg.
“It is a concern,” she said. “Council did pass a resolution Nov. 21 that I’m getting ready to send to Rep. (David) Gomberg and Sen. (Dick) Anderson. We, like other cities have as well, expressed our concerns about this. So council did pass a resolution that basically says ‘Don’t force us to do things, we want our recreational immunity back.’ ”
Lincoln City
Lincoln city is going through the assessment sent out by CIS to examine its trails, beach access and other things, said city manager Daphnee Legarza.
“So we are in that process,” she said. “But nothing has been closed.”
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department,
“We are aware of the case (Nicole Fields v. the city of Newport) and we are watching it and consulting with the Department of Justice,” said Oregon Parks and Recreation Department spokesman Chris Havel. “But we have no plans to close any state park trail or any other facility at a state park as a result of that case.”
Rep. David Gomberg, D-Otis
In his weekly newsletter, Gomberg said he expressed his concerns about the issue with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Commission at its November meeting in Newport as well as at the Cape Perpetua Land and Sea Symposium in Yachats.
Gomberg called the recommendation by CIS to close all improved recreational trails a “big deal” and said while he hates to see someone injured, if recreational immunity is cast aside, it could lead to the closure of public spaces.
“I’m not hearing of plans to close local trails, parks or beaches yet,” Gomberg wrote. “But in the meantime, these rulings … will likely lead to increased insurance premiums for local and state governments. My concern is not with people who have brought these cases, but rather whether we need to update our negligence and immunity statutes.”
- Garret Jaros is YachatsNews’ full-time reporter and can be reached at GJaros@YachatsNews.com
“Recreation” is usually defined as one doing something for enjoyment when not working. Apparently going to the beach with your dogs is not recreation, so I assume it was an activity not enjoyed by the plaintiff and she was actually working at the time.
There are professional dog walkers so it could be considered work. If you are just doing it to exercise the dog then you might not consider it recreation.
Then that would be considered a commercial use and should require a permit and be licensed and bonded. Take personal responsibility for your actions. If you can’t accept that things get slippery when wet, just stay safe inside your house and let the rest of us risk our lives living life.
I agree, people need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.
I slipped on a steep wet trail that had old primitive steps. I ruptured my quad tendon. It was my choice to use that trail. I never thought about suing the National Forest. I was responsible.
My wife tripped over uneven asphalt at a walkway leading to the beach she hit her head and was rushed to the ER resulting in thousands of dollars because the city’s neglect to repair a walkway
Agree. Wood always is slippery when wet. Assume personal responsibility, pay attention where you walk and what physical condition you are in.
All of us that love the outdoors know that we need to take responsibility for ourselves. Everything gets wet and slippery in the rainy season – pay attention – wear proper footwear. .
THANK YOU! That is exactly what I was thinking! I’m sorry the woman broke her leg— been there, done that, though mine was broken by stepping off a curb and my ankle rolled— but it’s just common sense to walk carefully in a wet environment, ESPECIALLY outdoors!
100% correct.
Yeah, there is no professional licensing for dog walking. Plus, in this context, a bond would cover the client for any wrongdoing. It wouldn’t cover the professional’s health.
“Closing the 804 in the City”. Where does it become state jurisdiction? I wonder what’s going to happen at State Parks?
I think Janet misinterpreted what the law says and the ruling by the court. While you’re on the beach with your dogs you are of course recreating but it’s when you’re getting to the beach from your car to the beach it’s the trail you are walking on that is not covered. If you slip and fall the cities are not covered by recreational immunity and you can sue. Bandon Mayor Mary Schamehorn.
I know at the ER they ask you if your injury occurred on someone’s/ government’s property. If you say yes, your insurance often refuses to cover and you have to have their homeowner’s insurance or government cover your medical bills. Which means, you end up being responsible for the bills while fighting the other person’s insurance or government to cover your expensive bills. Maybe this is what she ran into with her broken leg? My insurance should cover me when I’m hurt. That’s what they are taking my money for, right?
On the other hand, I know a lot of people just try to find loopholes to sue for whatever they can. Crazy!
The admitting person in the emergency room is required by Medicare to ask “is your injury the result of a fall?” So, yeah, she was just being honest and opened a can of worms.
Ms Schamehorn
I have hiked all over this state
I consider access to beaches and waterfalls, mountains , prairies , lakes all part of recreation
I also ride bicycles on our highways and roads I am responsible for each activity
It is a serious mistake to change
Oregon is the 6th state I’ve lived in. Of all, Oregon has the fewest public access to fishing bar Ocean Fishing because of the amount of that type of land being privately owned, so the answer is make it harder for landowners to allow the public to use their land to access recreational spots is what? I say it’s a symptom of authoritarianism that has been creeping in for a long, long time!
I think people shouldn’t have the mentality that if they fall on a trail or in this case a walking bridge then it’s time to sue. Walked trails all my life and had my falls too. Should be at your own risk . Volunteers or city employees should of course maintain them better. Oregon is meant to be explored . If we make it easier for citizens to sue every time someone falls then exploring Oregon will be a thing of the past.
I see any trail that I choose to take is taking them at my own risk It is my choice to use them or not to. This is how I have always seen trails, my choice not public land use responsibility for my choices
Well stated Joyce. Personal responsibility is a fading ethic in America. Tragic loss to all of us.
Amén. An accident is an unintentional misstep. No one, no thing intentionally caused the fall that occurred in Mother Nature’s yard.
Unfortunately the courts and litigious people do not see it that way. This challenge to the recreational immunity protection came about after a woman slipped on a wet bridge and broke her leg. Most people would realize that a wet bridge would be slippery and would not even consider suing for what appeared to be their own miscalculation. But these are different times.
I’m just concerned that they’re looking for another way to close public access to the beaches. You can’t get to the beach if you don’t have a trail.
I agree with your thoughts. This is just the beginning if it stands. Remember all the forest land that was sold to timber companies? The public has access although the last 20 years it’s become more limited. We can still hunt and walk the roads and trails. During daylight hours. 🙄
This has nothing to do with finding ways to close public access to the beaches. It’s about personal responsibility. You trip and fall, it’s your fault as long as the trail is not dangerous. I trip all of the time – I’m clumsy. Should I suddenly start suing everyone? Oregon is proud of our access to the beaches and we don’t want it closed. Not sure why everyone is thinking this is a ploy to close them.
A lot of times the person is forced to sue because their medical insurance won’t cover it if they determine a city/ person/ organization is to blame. So it’s likely that we’re have a conversation about personal accountability when this is just the product of a greedy insurance company, and the person was responsible by having medical insurance.
I think medical insurance companies should have to cover you (since that’s literally what you pay for) and if they think someone else is liable, they can go after that entity themselves.
I completely agree with you Joyce. You’re out in nature. If I trip over a tree root, am I to make a lawsuit? It seems silly. If things like this is allowed, it is breeding ground for so much more. It just seems like every time someone gets upset, or hurt because of their choices; it somehow becomes someone else’s fault. Where is the accountability?
Can’t this be cured by placing signs that say, “Unimproved trail, Use at your own risk!”
What next? Sue Mother Nature?
Walking a dog is absolutely recreational. Our trails and public lands are precious. We’re lucky to have so many, and that all beaches are public. Oregonians cannot allow one litigious dog owner to take the trails away from all of us. All trails should be use at your own risk.
Rather than closing the trails to recreational hikers, why not close them to non-recreational transiting.
I was thinking the same thing. Could they post a sign saying “this trail is for recreational use only, all other uses prohibited”?
Exactly! They could just as easily post signs at the trails or elsewhere that all trail use is for recreational purposes only any other use would be at the risk Of the user.
Great idea
Smart!
I agree whole heartedly with the courts. Let’s start by closing that death trap known as Multnomah Falls. Then, that other death trap known as Crater Lake. Oh, and don’t forget the Pacific Crest Trail — too many rocks and stumble opportunities. Come to think of it, the entire state of Oregon should just be closed. It would be simpler and more cost effective in the long run. And, even though I feel for the young lady who slipped in wet wood, I do hope she doesn’t have natural wood flooring in her home that may, at some point, need cleaning and become wet, even if she is just “transiting” from the living room to the kitchen.
Well said. Slippery wood can have lifelong implications. Often leading to chaos.
Yachats trails could be a new cash cow for would-be walkers not recreating but just walking.
Especially if your doctor told you to get more exercise. Then you could say it was for medical use.
Why would the courts let this go this far. Just goes to show how someone can ruin it for everyone.
Another chipping away at self-responsibility. (and common sense.) Orgon is wet. Bridges are made of wood. Wood when it gets wet can be slippery. If a faulty railing gave way, or the bridge collapsed that is one thing (not necessarily to be expected). Walking in nature, I believe we can expect some natural hazards and prepare ourselves for them i.e being mindful of them and being careful. I love the access to the beach and to nature here in Oregon. Its why I live here. I would hate it if everything was closed. We could put up signs everywhere that say, “Dangerous- Enter, Walk, Breath At Your Own Risk” But ultimately that would make us less safe, because no-one would have any reason to even try to make things safe or improve things.
So how about we compromise: Cities and property owners continue to do due diligence checking for blatant dangers and fixable liabilities getting to and being at recreation spots and I (we) will continue to be reasonably responsible for our own safety in so far as using good judgement re weather and conditions, and wearing appropriate clothing and shoes.
Just one more note: When I go to “recreate”, as far as I’m concerned, that recreation (walking, looking, noticing things, not working) starts as soon as I get out of the car.
Craziness I live in Waldport and walk my dog every day if you are looking for me you will find me at the beach sometimes Agate Beach usually Driftwood Beach,Nye Beach, Yachats too like to go wherever I want. I like to see different things
Closing trails over one minor incident is nuts
When I walk my dog it’s recreation, exercise and Dr’s orders too if I slip and fall my responsibility guess what wet wood is slippery so is wet grass and almost every thing that is wet or mossy like most of the Oregon coast slippery when wet
In an environment where it rains 5 to six months per year, in a state filled with nature’s wonders which are accessed by trails…. and in a state that has a constitutional accessibility law providing the right to beach access across public and private lands, at what point does a person become responsible for their own clutziness when walking, jogging, running, hiking, biking, horseback riding, ATV riding? What if I am on state forest land using a designated atv trail and I crash because of loose soil on the trail? BTW this happens daily all over the state…. is it then the state’s liability for not removing the loose soil on a forest motorcycle dirt trail? It is an embarrassment that our courts can be manipulated in such a way as to ruin the quality of life for an entire state populus, based on one person who refused to take accountability for her own actions. What if she had slipped in a muddy patch rather than a wooden bridge and broken her leg? Would the City of Newport then have been liable for not preventing the rain? Or for not drying out the mud? Hmmmm. Come on Americans! What happened to “Checks and Balances” between legislative and judicial branches of our government?
I know of no “constitutional accessibility law providing the right to beach access across public and private lands” in Oregon. You may be confusing that with the landmark beach bill which created a north/south recreational easement through privately-owned beaches within Oregon’s Ocean Shore State Recreation Area (essentially all Oregon’s beaches except the federal dunes from Florence to Coos Bay). That legislation absolutely DOES NOT guarantee access across private property to get to the beach, however.
Our ears need to perk up when a court, govt agency, or corporation proposes to prioritize safety over freedom. That’s not always a bad thing to do, obviously, but when it serves only to increase the profitability of influential industries while reducing the rights of citizens, that’s a red flag. Safety and freedom are both important to health and happiness, but freedom to recreate, communicate, and follow one’s conscience is the essence of the American experiment. The founding fathers expressly placed freedom above safety (read the First Amendment and the test of the Bill of Rights for evidence of this).
Should there be a reasonable balance of individual and governmental responsibility? I think so. If Newport was extremely negligent or reckless in its responsibility to its citizens by not properly caring for its infrastructure, the city, (or rather its insurance policy), ought to pay for medical bills incurred. The bar for city negligence in cases such as these needs to be high and spelled out in the law. Personal responsibility needs to be demonstrably high and expected too. Hopefully, the legislature will be wise enough—and independent enough from the influence of the insurance industry and the lawyer lobby— to address this issue in favor of the citizens of Oregon.
What I hear is real Oregonians know how to deal with our weather and the conditions it creates. We wear the appropriate clothing and foot wear for the occasion. Put up a sign to proceed at your own risk while walking beyond your car. Next thing you know there will be signs on every building that say the contents inside are known to cause cancer in California and trails in Oregon are known to have tripping hazards.
I believe the state has no constitutional right to take away our trails. Why not simply post all trails with signs informing people of the possible “dangers” and that anyone who chooses to continue will be held personally responsible for any and all injuries they may incur and will not be able to receive compensation from any government. Where is the common sense and self accountability? Why can’t our Oregon government find logical and rational responses to situations like this? It seems so simple to make people accountable for their own choices. It’s how I raised my own children and I set the example by living it and take responsibility for my choices every day.
The State 100% has authority to manage trails on State-owned property. This includes closing or partially-closing routes permanently or indefinitely, for a variety of reasons including health and safety, resource protection or critical habitat protection. That authority is enshrined in Oregon
Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules and is not new or recent.
Thank you to all our coastal constituents for your responses to this so very important issue to all of us who enjoy our freedom to access the many natural features of this wonderful state of Oregon. As a volunteer at a local ‘natural’ park in the midst of West Linn, i am keenly aware that a closure ruling would impact the many folks of all ages and for all reasons who use the access/through trails that go to and through the park. The beauty of the wooded areas and access to the Willamette River and all the sights and sounds that these provide would rob our community of unique natural assets just a stones throw from the busy concrete environment of Portland. There are pebbles, unprotected access to the river water, downed tree limbs and leaves, blackberry vines, and now and then a random coyote that users assume personal responsibility for in exchange for the privilege of ready access to the quiet and everchanging nature that is there, free of charge for their solace and enjoyment. Would it be too much to instead consider the negative health and wellbeing impact that taking away the access to experiences in a natural (not groomed and signed) environment would have on the greater populace? Consideration of the ‘greater good’ is at risk here. Individual freedoms come with risk and responsibility. Here, at the end of the Oregon Trail, we enjoy the history that is our legacy – those who set out across the country to explore the possibilities that this land had to offer. As they made that fateful choice to head out with oxen and cart they had little idea of what lay ahead, but each must have known the risk and responsibility that came with their choice. It is time we take stock of this quality in our country and protect the freedom to explore and its subsequent burden of personal responsibility if we have hope for the future of our youth.
Slippery slopes come in many forms – take care.
Peggy – well stated. I fully agree with what you wrote. Personal responsibility and accountability seem lacking in a litigious society. It’s always someone else’s fault. The only reason that makes sense for that injured dog walker to sue is that her insurance wouldn’t cover it. Any other reason seems way out of place.
I am proud of my adopted home of 45 years. I grew up outside Boston where private beaches are forbidden to general populace; and public beaches might charge to park, are crowded and often trashy. Please, Oregon legislature, use your collective heads and reinstate the access protections!
The “one bad apple” portion of this discussion aside, why is the insurance industry being allowed to virtually dictate every life in America? It is not a hyperbolic question, it’s beyond insane legislatively speaking what the insurance industry is “allowed”. But then corporations are people too and political action committee money is always needed. (Insert sad eye roll here.)
By this logic, shouldn’t ski hills also be closed, because people get hurt all time skiing. Public schools should be closed because of the amount of school shootings each year. As the matter, shouldn’t all public spaces be closed? There is always a chance some litigious person may slip and fall. Please help me understand how this makes sense to take away the few things us poor people have left in this world. A sign posted “At your own Risk.” Should do the trick here.
Wow. Someone got very lucky to get the judge they did. Unfortunately, too many people won’t take responsibility for their own actions. If not recreating, then why be in a recreational area? I’m sure there are plenty of nice, safe city streets they could walk their of or themselves on.
Bad Judge, bad lawyer, bad ruling. This is not a law of nature, but an abrogation of it.
If we are making signs anyway, can we add “please pick up after yourself” or “take out what you bring in” or maybe just plainly state that nature is beautiful, let’s keep it that way. I feel this is more necessary than what is being talked about.
What makes you think people will read them or care? They don’t.
Though it would never cross my mind to sue over it . And i feel the court opened a huge can if worms and created a loophole to be exploited ,I would hope everyone took an assessment of what responsibility is and hope someone bothered to go put some grip tape on the bridge.
The issue of recreation and transit brings up the question of footwear in my mind. IF she was merely transiting, which I find highly doubtful and most probably a consultation of her legal council, then was she wearing appropriate gear rated for a recreation trail? This issue of liability then would fall back to the manufacturer of the gear and the waiver the individual agreed to in purchasing that item should they utilize this gear in inappropriate conditions.
Her injury is unfortunate and I dont intend to sound insensitive but this why we carry personal injury insurance. I hope she gets the care she needs, just not at the expense of the rest of societies freedom to enjoy our amazingly beautiful state, while using logical common sense of interacting with our surroundings.
Pretty typical overreaction by CIS and some cities because of fear over one lawsuit. I suppose they think this opens Pandora’s box to other stupid lawsuits. Hopefully the legislature will come up with a fix for the off chance another lawsuit happens.
How is CIS Oregon justifying an annual increase in rates of 15 – 20%? That is ridiculous and unsustainable.
Close our sidewalks too. We only have 90 feet of sidewalk in front. Imagine all the things we could be sued for.
This is a fundamental flaw of American tort law that has caused so much degradation to the quality of life here and enrichment of lawyers. Suing a corporation for claiming that a product is safe, or person for willful negligence without disclaimers is one thing, but to punish gracious people or institutions for allowing recreation on ones land is another. Suits like this need a minimal guarantee of state-appointed attorneys that absorb the cost of quickly determining the claim.
Insurance wins again!
I think that if you enter a recreational trail, no matter what the circumstance … it should be implied: “recreational” and not eligible to be used for any other definition that suits the needs of someone’s lawsuit.
Was the city truly negligent in maintenance?
At some point, we expect adults to do two things, one, take reasonable care of their property in anticipation that others would use it, looking out, reasonably, for their safety.
And two, being accountable for your actions, knowing that slippery wet things are slippery, tree roots can cause you to trip… etc…and if you injure yourself while hiking, it’s kind of on you.
Oh and… kudos to all y’all who leave things better than you find them, and to all the trail maintenance and trail builders!
It seems that signs along trails should include an email of a contact person in case a tree has fallen across a trail, a bridge has broken boards, a sinkhole, a dead deer on the pathway. My guess is that someone is assigned to inspecting trails periodically to look for hazards? I am grateful when trailheads indicate sightings of cougars or bears along with the date last seen. I enjoy hiking regularly all over Oregon and do so at my own risk. I volunteered to do upkeep on trails when I was younger and stronger. We had trail leaders working alongside making sure it was done to standards. I realize there is probably a long “to do” list for trail repairs.
Why not just put up signs at the trailheads that states that this trail is for recreational purposes only. Or something the lawyers can agree on.
Tort reform desperately needed yesterday.
How is the injured woman doing? From my perspective what’s the big deal? Just pay the lady; she’s hurt. Don’t let insurance companies dictate public policy. Use alternate forms of community, non-government organizations.
This is a rabbit-hole ruling and will eventually result in landowners limiting access to trails and beaches all over.
I can see both sides of this story. And both have reasonable points.
However, what really bothers me is our current culture that demands that someone be blamed when something goes wrong. You know what? Sometimes it’s not anyone’s fault. Sometimes it just happens and you don’t need to blame anyone. You don’t need to point the finger and have someone else make it right. That’s just life. Grow up and accept that random stuff will happen.
And no matter how hard you try to protect yourself no matter how far you bend over backwards to protect yourself against all possible misadventure – you will never be 100% safe. Just give up your notions that it should be that way and start to accept life as it really is.
Stuff happens.
I would be very very careful about legislation to fix this problem. There has been a move afoot by years by ski areas, ourfitters and other private, for pay recreational sites and services to escape liability for anything less than gross negligence. They are going to use this court ruling as a way to go overboard and limit their liability, not just that of government entities.
It’s very easy to pooh pooh people who sue as greedy individuals lacking personal responsibility. But in many cases some sort of negligence short of gross negligence was responsible for injuring them and they deserve compensation.