105.696 Duty
of care or liability not created; exercise of care required of person using
land. ORS 105.672
to 105.696 do not:
(1) Create a duty
of care or basis for liability for personal injury, death or property damage
resulting from the use of land for recreational purposes, for gardening, for
woodcutting or for the harvest of special forest products.
(2) Relieve a
person using the land of another for recreational purposes, gardening,
woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products from any obligation that
the person has to exercise care in use of the land in the activities of the
person or from the legal consequences of failure of the person to exercise that
care. [1995 c.456 §6; 2009 c.532 §6]
105.697 [1979 c.434 §7; repealed by 1995
c.456 §9]
Notes of Decisions
McCormick v. State Parks & Rec. Dept., 482 P.3d 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“672 to ORS 105.696”). Thus, the trial court correctly concluded that there were no disputes of material fact as to whether the state’s $5 fee was a charge for the recreational use of The Cove Palisades State Park, and correctly granted sum- mary judgment to the state.”
Stewart Ex Rel. Hill v. Kralman, 248 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Second, the trial court determined that, pursuant to ORS 105.696, if plaintiff was on defendant’s land closed to the public, he was a trespasser and defendant only owed plaintiff a duty not to injure him by willful or wanton conduct.”
Stewart Ex Rel. Hill v. Kralman, 248 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Second, the trial court determined that, pursuant to ORS 105.696, if plaintiff was on defendant's land closed to the public, he was a trespasser and defendant only owed plaintiff a duty not to injure him by willful or wanton conduct.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 105.696(1) — 2 cases
Stewart Ex Rel. Hill v. Kralman, 248 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Second, the trial court determined that, pursuant to ORS 105.696, if plaintiff was on defendant’s land closed to the public, he was a trespasser and defendant only owed plaintiff a duty not to injure him by willful or wanton conduct.”
Stewart Ex Rel. Hill v. Kralman, 248 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Second, the trial court determined that, pursuant to ORS 105.696, if plaintiff was on defendant's land closed to the public, he was a trespasser and defendant only owed plaintiff a duty not to injure him by willful or wanton conduct.”
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.