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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 368.256 (2026)

Creation of road hazard prohibited

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      368.256 Creation of road hazard prohibited. (1) Except as authorized by the county governing body, an owner or lawful occupant of land shall not allow:

      (a) Any water to overflow, seep or otherwise discharge from that land onto a public road under county jurisdiction including, but not limited to, water that is passing over the land, diverted from the land by an obstruction on the land, flowing from the land because of rainfall or discharged from an irrigation sprinkler or other device.

      (b) Any structure, tree, drainage way, soil deposit or other natural or man-made thing on that land to present a danger to or create a hazard for the public traveling on a public road or facilities within the right of way of the public road by obstructing, hanging over or otherwise encroaching or threatening to encroach in any manner on a public road that is under county jurisdiction.

      (2) A person is not in violation of this section if there is no reasonable method for the person to control, stop or remove the cause of the violation. [1981 c.153 §27]

 

      368.260 [Repealed by 1981 c.153 §79]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1986–1987 · leading case: Donaca v. Curry Cnty., 734 P.2d 1339 (Or. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Donaca v. Curry Cnty., 734 P.2d 1339 (Or. 1987). · cites it 2× “256, which provides: “(1) Except as authorized by the county governing body, an owner or lawful occupant of land shall not allow: * * * * *38 “(b) Any structure, tree, drainage way, soil deposit or other natural or man-made thing on that land to present a danger to or create a…”
Donaca v. Curry Cnty., 714 P.2d 265 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the county owed him no duty to trim the vegetation to a height that would not obstruct the view of motorists approaching the intersection.”
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.