Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672 (2026)

Definitions for ORS 105.672 to 105.696

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      105.672 Definitions for ORS 105.672 to 105.696. As used in ORS 105.672 to 105.696:

      (1) “Charge”:

      (a) Means the admission price or fee requested or expected by an owner in return for granting permission for a person to enter or go upon the owner’s land.

      (b) Does not mean any amount received from a public body in return for granting permission for the public to enter or go upon the owner’s land.

      (c) Does not include the fee for a winter recreation parking permit or any other parking fee of $15 or less per day.

      (2) “Harvest” has that meaning given in ORS 164.813.

      (3) “Land” includes all real property, whether publicly or privately owned.

      (4) “Owner” means:

      (a) The possessor of any interest in any land, including but not limited to the holder of any legal or equitable title, a tenant, a lessee, an occupant, the holder of an easement, the holder of a right of way or a person in possession of the land;

      (b) An officer, employee, volunteer or agent of a person described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, while acting within the scope of assigned duties; and

      (c) A director, partner, general partner, shareholder, limited liability company member, limited liability partner or limited partner of a person described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

      (5) “Recreational purposes” includes, but is not limited to, outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, walking, running, bicycling, nature study, outdoor educational activities, waterskiing, winter sports, viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic or scientific sites or volunteering for any public purpose project.

      (6) “Special forest products” has that meaning given in ORS 164.813.

      (7) “Woodcutting” means the cutting or removal of wood from land by an individual who has obtained permission from the owner of the land to cut or remove wood. [1995 c.456 §1; 2007 c.372 §1; 2009 c.532 §1; 2010 c.52 §1; 2017 c.449 §1; 2024 c.64 §§6,9; 2025 c.220 §2]

 

      105.675 [1971 c.780 §5; 1987 c.708 §4; repealed by 1995 c.456 §9]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 217 P.3d 651 (Or. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 217 P.3d 651 (Or. 2009). · cites it 26× “]" ORS 105.672 (2005) [3] offers definitions for terms used in the recreational immunity provisions: "(1) `Charge' means the admission price or fee asked by any owner in return for permission to enter or go upon the owner's land.”
Johnson v. Gibson, 369 P.3d 1151 (Or. 2016). · cites it 9× “As framed by the Ninth Circuit, the questions are (1) whether individual employees responsible for repairing, maintaining, and operating improvements on City-owned recreational land made available to the public for recreational purposes are “owner [s]” of the land, as that term…”
Liberty v. State, Dep't of Transp., 148 P.3d 909 (Or. 2006). · cites it 11× “Next, the court noted that the statute does not define “recreational purposes,” but rather sets out, in ORS 105.672(5), a *16 nonexclusive list of activities that the term “includes” — a list that does not include the use of land to gain access to other land for recreational…”
Brewer v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 2 P.3d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 14× “Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under ORCP 21 A(8) on the ground that plaintiffs failed to state a claim, because defendants were immune from liability under the Public Use of Lands Act, ORS 105.”
Stedman v. Dept. of Forestry, 502 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 10× “) The term “charge” is defined by ORS 105.672, which provides: “As used in ORS 105.”
McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 466 P.3d 10 (Or. 2020). · cites it 10× “” The state moved for summary judgment, assert- ing that it was entitled to recreational immunity under the recreational immunity statutes, ORS 105.672 to 105.696. As relevant here, the recreational immunity statute, ORS 105.”
Waggoner v. City of Woodburn, 103 P.3d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 11× “” ORS 105.672(3). “Recreational purposes” include, but are not limited to, “outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, nature study, outdoor educational activities, water skiing, winter sports, viewing or enjoying historical,…”
Kelly v. Hochberg, 243 P.3d 62 (Or. 2010). · cites it 8× “* * 3 Defendant asserted that BLM had opened Cedar Flat Road to the public for recreational purposes, without charge, and that plaintiff was using the road for a recreational purpose under ORS 105.672(5) 4 when he was injured. For that reason, defendant argued, BLM was immune…”
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 190 P.3d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “” The legislature defined “charge” for these purposes to mean “the admission price or fee asked by any owner in return for permission to enter or go upon the owner’s land.”
Kimberly Ann Sallee, Individually & as Next Friend of Lucas Gregory Durkop & Maria Christina Rivera, Matthew James Sallee, & James Allan Sallee v. Matthew R. Stewart & Diana Stewart D/B/A Stewartland Holsteins, 827 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2013). · cites it 2× “1(2)(b) (2011); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 105.672 (5) (West Supp.”
McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 482 P.3d 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “OAR 736-015-0030(1), (6) (providing that the fee for a day use parking permit at The Cove Palisades State Park, among other specified state parks, “is a parking fee and not a charge for recreational purposes under ORS 105.672 to ORS 105.696”). Thus, the trial court correctly…”
Liberty v. State, 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “” According to ORS 105.672(3), the term “recreational purposes” “includes, but is not limited to, outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, nature study, outdoor educational activities, water-skiiing, winter sports, viewing or…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(1) — 5 cases
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 217 P.3d 651 (Or. 2009). “]" ORS 105.672 (2005) [3] offers definitions for terms used in the recreational immunity provisions: "(1) `Charge' means the admission price or fee asked by any owner in return for permission to enter or go upon the owner's land.”
Stedman v. Dept. of Forestry, 502 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “) The term “charge” is defined by ORS 105.672, which provides: “As used in ORS 105.”
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 190 P.3d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “” The legislature defined “charge” for these purposes to mean “the admission price or fee asked by any owner in return for permission to enter or go upon the owner’s land.”
McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 466 P.3d 10 (Or. 2020). “” The state moved for summary judgment, assert- ing that it was entitled to recreational immunity under the recreational immunity statutes, ORS 105.672 to 105.696. As relevant here, the recreational immunity statute, ORS 105.”
White v. United States Dep't of Agric. Forest Serv. (D. Or. 2021).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(1)(a) — 4 cases
Stedman v. Dept. of Forestry, 502 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “) The term “charge” is defined by ORS 105.672, which provides: “As used in ORS 105.”
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 217 P.3d 651 (Or. 2009). “]" ORS 105.672 (2005) [3] offers definitions for terms used in the recreational immunity provisions: "(1) `Charge' means the admission price or fee asked by any owner in return for permission to enter or go upon the owner's land.”
Freeby v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc., 344 Or. App. 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Freeby v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc., 344 Or. App. 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(1)(b) — 1 case
Ortega v. Martin, 427 P.3d 1103 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(1)(c) — 2 cases
McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 482 P.3d 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “OAR 736-015-0030(1), (6) (providing that the fee for a day use parking permit at The Cove Palisades State Park, among other specified state parks, “is a parking fee and not a charge for recreational purposes under ORS 105.672 to ORS 105.696”). Thus, the trial court correctly…”
McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 466 P.3d 10 (Or. 2020). “” The state moved for summary judgment, assert- ing that it was entitled to recreational immunity under the recreational immunity statutes, ORS 105.672 to 105.696. As relevant here, the recreational immunity statute, ORS 105.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(3) — 11 cases
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 217 P.3d 651 (Or. 2009). “]" ORS 105.672 (2005) [3] offers definitions for terms used in the recreational immunity provisions: "(1) `Charge' means the admission price or fee asked by any owner in return for permission to enter or go upon the owner's land.”
Brewer v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 2 P.3d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under ORCP 21 A(8) on the ground that plaintiffs failed to state a claim, because defendants were immune from liability under the Public Use of Lands Act, ORS 105.”
Waggoner v. City of Woodburn, 103 P.3d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “” ORS 105.672(3). “Recreational purposes” include, but are not limited to, “outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, nature study, outdoor educational activities, water skiing, winter sports, viewing or enjoying historical,…”
Johnson v. Gibson, 369 P.3d 1151 (Or. 2016). “As framed by the Ninth Circuit, the questions are (1) whether individual employees responsible for repairing, maintaining, and operating improvements on City-owned recreational land made available to the public for recreational purposes are “owner [s]” of the land, as that term…”
Landis v. Limbaugh, 385 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(4) — 5 cases
Johnson v. Gibson, 369 P.3d 1151 (Or. 2016). “As framed by the Ninth Circuit, the questions are (1) whether individual employees responsible for repairing, maintaining, and operating improvements on City-owned recreational land made available to the public for recreational purposes are “owner [s]” of the land, as that term…”
Brewer v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 2 P.3d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under ORCP 21 A(8) on the ground that plaintiffs failed to state a claim, because defendants were immune from liability under the Public Use of Lands Act, ORS 105.”
Waggoner v. City of Woodburn, 103 P.3d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “” ORS 105.672(3). “Recreational purposes” include, but are not limited to, “outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, nature study, outdoor educational activities, water skiing, winter sports, viewing or enjoying historical,…”
Ortega v. Martin, 427 P.3d 1103 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
Johnson v. Gibson (Or. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(4)(a) — 1 case
McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 466 P.3d 10 (Or. 2020). “” The state moved for summary judgment, assert- ing that it was entitled to recreational immunity under the recreational immunity statutes, ORS 105.672 to 105.696. As relevant here, the recreational immunity statute, ORS 105.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(4)(b) — 1 case
McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 466 P.3d 10 (Or. 2020). “” The state moved for summary judgment, assert- ing that it was entitled to recreational immunity under the recreational immunity statutes, ORS 105.672 to 105.696. As relevant here, the recreational immunity statute, ORS 105.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(5) — 14 cases
Liberty v. State, Dep't of Transp., 148 P.3d 909 (Or. 2006). “Next, the court noted that the statute does not define “recreational purposes,” but rather sets out, in ORS 105.672(5), a *16 nonexclusive list of activities that the term “includes” — a list that does not include the use of land to gain access to other land for recreational…”
Kelly v. Hochberg, 243 P.3d 62 (Or. 2010). “* * 3 Defendant asserted that BLM had opened Cedar Flat Road to the public for recreational purposes, without charge, and that plaintiff was using the road for a recreational purpose under ORS 105.672(5) 4 when he was injured. For that reason, defendant argued, BLM was immune…”
Waggoner v. City of Woodburn, 103 P.3d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “” ORS 105.672(3). “Recreational purposes” include, but are not limited to, “outdoor activities such as hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, nature study, outdoor educational activities, water skiing, winter sports, viewing or enjoying historical,…”
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 217 P.3d 651 (Or. 2009). “]" ORS 105.672 (2005) [3] offers definitions for terms used in the recreational immunity provisions: "(1) `Charge' means the admission price or fee asked by any owner in return for permission to enter or go upon the owner's land.”
Kimberly Ann Sallee, Individually & as Next Friend of Lucas Gregory Durkop & Maria Christina Rivera, Matthew James Sallee, & James Allan Sallee v. Matthew R. Stewart & Diana Stewart D/B/A Stewartland Holsteins, 827 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2013). “1(2)(b) (2011); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 105.672 (5) (West Supp.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(l)(a) — 2 cases
Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 217 P.3d 651 (Or. 2009). “]" ORS 105.672 (2005) [3] offers definitions for terms used in the recreational immunity provisions: "(1) `Charge' means the admission price or fee asked by any owner in return for permission to enter or go upon the owner's land.”
Stringer v. United States Dep't of Agric. (Forest Serv.), 63 F. Supp. 3d 1269 (D. Or. 2014).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.672(l)(c) — 1 case
Stringer v. United States Dep't of Agric. (Forest Serv.), 63 F. Supp. 3d 1269 (D. Or. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.