House Judiciary hears bill to make 2024 recreational-immunity changes permanent

The House Committee on Judiciary heard Senate Bill 179A on April 24, a measure intended to make permanent temporary changes enacted in 2024 that limit liability for local governments and some landowners when people use trails, paths and other rights-of-way for recreational purposes.

A sponsor overview said the measure allows local governments included in ORS 174.116 to opt into protections under ORS 105.668 and extends immunity in ORS 105.688 for certain improved paths, trails and facilities, subject to exceptions for gross negligence, reckless or intentional misconduct, or strict liability. The sponsor also said the measure adds activities such as running, walking and bicycling to the definition of recreational purposes and applies to causes of action filed on or after the bill’s effective date. On the Senate floor the measure received "30 eyes and 0 nays," the sponsor said.

Witnesses representing parks, insurers, special districts, land trusts, trail advocates and private landowners urged the committee to make the temporary protections permanent, saying uncertainty has forced some local governments and private landowners to consider closing access or delaying trail investments.

Cindy Robert (Oregon Recreation and Park Association) said the temporary changes in 2024 had prevented insurers from advising agencies to close parks and allowed communities to keep trails open. "The temporary changes had their intended effect," Robert said, adding that the association supports removing the sunset and seeking further statutory improvements later.

Kirk Mylander (City-County Insurance Services) testified that stable recreational immunity helps local governments plan investments and set insurance contributions. "When recreational immunity is stable... it encourages the development of improvements," he told the committee. Mark Landauer (Special Districts Association of Oregon) and other public-land representatives said the bill provides needed predictability to continue park and trail projects.

Land-trust and private-land witnesses said the protections are also important for nonprofit landowners and private individuals who open their land to the public. Carson Kendrick (Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts) said his organization manages more than 90 properties with more than 150,000 acres open for public use and warned that small land trusts could face costly litigation without protections. Natasha Bellas (Deschutes Land Trust) said her organization maintains more than 25 miles of trails on over 2,000 acres and that loss of immunity would force difficult choices.

Private landowner Joanne Katel described donating a public trail easement and working with partners to build a 144-foot suspension bridge that connected local trails; she said the availability of recreational immunity influenced her decision to grant the easement.

John Devlin, co-chair of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association legislative committee, said OTLA is neutral on the bill as written because it represents the result of a lengthy negotiation among stakeholders; he urged the House to pass the compromise without further changes.

Supporters acknowledged the measure is not a final fix and recommended further work to address private-landowner intent and dual-use trails (recreation versus transportation). The committee closed the public hearing; the sponsor noted the bill had passed the Senate 30–0 and urged timely action.

What happened next: public testimony concluded and no committee vote was recorded at this hearing.