Oregon debate over waivers for recreational injuries pits insurers and ski industry against victims’ advocates

Senate Bill 1196 drew lengthy testimony and divided views on Monday as insurers, ski‑area operators, victims and legal advocates debated whether the state should allow waivers that bar ordinary‑negligence claims arising from participation in sports and recreational activities.

Senator Floyd Pruzanski, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, testified in strong opposition and urged that the subject be handled in judiciary because the bill would “limit an individual seeking redress for injuries received due to simple ordinary negligence.” Pruzanski said the measure risks creating a “double standard” that would deny ordinary‑negligence claims in recreational settings while similar claims would remain available in places such as grocery stores.

Personal testimony highlighted stakes on both sides. Joel Shaikh, who told the committee he is now paraplegic after a 2020 ski crash that he blamed on unsafe conditions at Mount Hood Meadows, told senators: “This bill allows operators to walk away from their negligence in not keeping paying customers safe.” Amanda Halbert, who described a 2020 crash that killed her husband, said the run “was nothing short of a death trap” and urged senators to “vote no on limiting the rights of Oregonians.”

Industry and insurer witnesses said availability and affordability of liability insurance for outdoor recreation operators are at risk. Kimberly McGare, an attorney representing ski‑area interests, told the committee that insurers have been leaving Oregon’s market and that “as of May 30, we are down to one” carrier for ski areas. Tim Hendrickson, who manages the Mountain Guard Insurance Program, said underwriting specialty recreation is complex and that only a very small number of insurers write this business; he told the committee “it takes a significant amount of expertise to write in this industry.”

Proponents, including McGare and Jim Manley of the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the bill restores the pre‑2014 balance under which clear waivers were enforceable for ordinary negligence but did not apply to gross negligence, intentional misconduct or minors. They pointed to other Western states — and to the 2024 Colorado Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Crested Butte — as evidence that waiver enforcement can be limited to ordinary negligence and that statutory claims remain available.

Opponents warned that the bill’s breadth could bar many claims. Joe Pucci, an attorney for injured clients, said the bill’s language barring claims “arising out of or related to” a sport could sweep broadly and cited examples — drowning when lifeguards were absent, sexual abuse by a coach, or equipment hazards — that he said could be lost absent a full legislative solution. Senator Pruzanski and others suggested sending the measure to the Senate Judiciary Committee and to a cross‑stakeholder work group to explore alternatives, such as state‑backed insurance pools or other mechanisms to preserve operator insurance without extinguishing victims’ ordinary‑negligence claims.

The committee kept the public hearing open and carried the item forward to a future meeting; senators said a work group and additional committee sessions will continue the discussion. No committee vote on SB 1196 was taken on June 16.