Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.682 (2026)

Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

105.682 Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or harvest of special forest products. (1) Except as provided by subsection (2) of this section, and subject to the provisions of ORS 105.688, an owner of land is not liable in contract or tort for any personal injury, death or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products when the owner of land either directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products. The limitation on liability provided by this section applies if the principal purpose for entry upon the land is for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products, and is not affected if the injury, death or damage occurs while the person entering land is engaging in activities other than the use of the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products.

(2) This section does not limit the liability of an owner of land for intentional injury or damage to a person coming onto land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products. [1995 c.456 §3; 2009 c.532 §4]

105.685 [1979 c.434 §1; 1985 c.375 §1; repealed by 1995 c.456 §9]

105.687 [1979 c.434 §2; repealed by 1995 c.456 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (16 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 34× “In this action for injuries arising out of plaintiffs' use of a state park, the trial court granted summary judgment for the state, concluding that the state was entitled to recreational immunity under ORS 105.682. The Court of Appeals affirmed.”

Liberty v. State, Dep't of Transp., 148 P.3d 909 (Or. 2006). · cites it 24× “This case requires us to determine the scope of the immunity that ORS 105.682 confers on a landowner who “permits any person to use the [owner’s] land for recreational purposes[.”

McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 466 P.3d 10 (Or. 2020). · cites it 21× “The state moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was entitled to recreational immunity under ORS 105.682. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that that statute applies when the landowner permits the public to recreate on its land, and the state could not “permit”…”

Landis v. Limbaugh, 385 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “688, an owner of land is not liable in contract or tort for any personal injury, death or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products when the owner of land either directly or…”

Liberty v. State, 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 23× “ORS 105.682 provides that, when an owner of land permits any person to use the land for “recreational purposes,” the owner is not liable for personal injury, death, or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for such purposes.”

Brewer v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 2 P.3d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 14× “688 indicating that the immunities provided by ORS 105.682 extend to fixtures such as a dam.”

Conant v. Stroup, 51 P.3d 1263 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 12× “The trial court entered a directed verdict on the ground that defendants are immune under ORS 105.682, which provides that private landowners are immune from liability for personal injuries that arise out of the use of their land for recreational purposes when the owner permits…”

Liberty v. State, Dept. of Transp., 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 23× “ORS 105.682 provides that, when an owner of land permits any person to use the land for "recreational purposes," the owner is not liable for personal injury, death, or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for such purposes.”

Waggoner v. City of Woodburn, 103 P.3d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 16× “Defendant obtained summary judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that defendant is entitled to immunity under the state’s recreational use statute, ORS 105.682. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the immunity that the statute affords should apply only to undeveloped, rural…”

Stedman v. Dept. of Forestry, 502 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “The difference determines the viability of the state’s defense of recreational immunity under ORS 105.682. Our starting point is the legislature’s policy to pro- vide immunity to owners who allow recreational use of their land.”

Kelly v. Hochberg, 243 P.3d 62 (Or. 2010). · cites it 9× “This case requires us to determine the scope of immunity under ORS 105.682, the “recreational immunity” statute, 1 as applied to a motorcycle accident on a road traversing Bureau of Land Management property.”

Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 190 P.3d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “We recently stated in another case examining the recreational immunity statutes: “The scope of the immunity conferred by ORS 105.682 is a question of statutory construction.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.682(1) — 22 cases

Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 217 P.3d 651 (Or. 2009). “In this action for injuries arising out of plaintiffs' use of a state park, the trial court granted summary judgment for the state, concluding that the state was entitled to recreational immunity under ORS 105.682. The Court of Appeals affirmed.”

Landis v. Limbaugh, 385 P.3d 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “688, an owner of land is not liable in contract or tort for any personal injury, death or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes, gardening, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products when the owner of land either directly or…”

Stedman v. Dept. of Forestry, 502 P.3d 234 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “The difference determines the viability of the state’s defense of recreational immunity under ORS 105.682. Our starting point is the legislature’s policy to pro- vide immunity to owners who allow recreational use of their land.”

Coleman v. Oregon Parks & Rec. Dep't, 190 P.3d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “We recently stated in another case examining the recreational immunity statutes: “The scope of the immunity conferred by ORS 105.682 is a question of statutory construction.”

Brewer v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 2 P.3d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “688 indicating that the immunities provided by ORS 105.682 extend to fixtures such as a dam.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.682(2) — 5 cases

McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 466 P.3d 10 (Or. 2020). “The state moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was entitled to recreational immunity under ORS 105.682. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that that statute applies when the landowner permits the public to recreate on its land, and the state could not “permit”…”

Osgood v. State of Oregon, 342 Or. App. 154 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Laxer v. City of Portland, 567 P.3d 491 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

Osgood v. State of Oregon, 342 Or. App. 154 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).

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.