https://archive.ph/mf5z7 'Tough spot': Oregon Coast towns close trails after lawsuit puts legal shield in jeopardy Fields sued the City of Newport, claiming the bridge was “unreasonably hazardous” because it used “materials that become unusually slippery, but do not appear slippery.” The lawsuit also said the city had failed to apply anti-slip measures to the bridge surface and hadn’t provided warning of the conditions, according to court documents. “As a result of defendants’ negligence, plaintiff was caused physical pain, anguish, and suffering,” the lawsuit said. Fields asked for upward of $345,000 in economic and non-economic damages. Newport’s lawyers responded that the city was immune from the lawsuit because Fields was using the trail for a recreational purpose and the city was protected under recreational immunity. Lincoln County Circuit Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the city. Court of Appeals debates walking versus hiking, reverses decision Fields appealed the decision, arguing her purpose on the trail was not principally recreational. She noted walking and dog walking are not expressly included in the recreational immunity statute, and while hiking is included, “using the trail to get to the beach is not the same as hiking on the trail.” The court debated the definition of walking versus hiking and ultimately decided “there remains an issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s principal purpose in walking on the city’s trail was recreational or whether it was simply to go to and from the beach.” Fields also argued Oregon law only extends recreational immunity to unimproved access trails, and because the city improved, designed, and maintained the Ocean to Bay Trail for the purpose of accessing the beach, the city is not entitled to recreational immunity. The appeals court ruled in Fields' favor, writing “because the trail on which plaintiff fell was an improved trail … the city’s entitlement to immunity depends on the resolution of those factual issues by a jury." The case was sent back to Lincoln County to likely go before a jury. Oregon Supreme Court refuses to hear Newport's appeal Newport, joined by groups such as the League of Oregon Cities, asked the Oregon Supreme Court to overrule the decision and restore recreational immunity. If the ruling was allowed to stand, they argued, “landowners must decide if making their land available for recreational purposes is worth the risk of effectively losing access to the immunity by having to litigate through trial whatever subjective beliefs an injured plaintiff asserts their principal purpose was.” The court in October declined to review the decision. Insurance company recommends cities close trails In the wake of the appeals court ruling, CIS Oregon issued the following recommendations: 1. Improved trails that are used to access a recreational area should be closed. This especially includes trails, walkways and stairs used to access bodies of water, such as the ocean, lakes, rivers, streams and reservoirs. 2. Consider closing unimproved trails, because the subjective intent of the user can now nullify recreational immunity, which means if someone is injured on an unimproved trail, the city or county may find itself facing a costly jury trial to determine the injured person’s intent in using the trail.
Far too many Karens and snowflakes in this world. When one person is unhappy, or does something stupid, they always want the rest of the world to pay the price. No fair guessing who she voted for for president......
That’s totally fucked, fuck that lady, and fuck the judges who came to that kind of conclusion. That is some pretty dumb logic.
Put up sign "unimproved/wild area - enter at your own risk" Then people should have no avenue for a lawsuit. I'm not saying that's the current law, simply saying that's how it should be. In fact if there isn't signage saying that it is an improved area then there should probably be no legal recourse anyway
Surprised she isn't also sueing the weather forecasters for failure to report slippery walking conditions. As well as sueing the manufacture of the walking shoes she was wearing, which allowed her to slip and fall. The more I learn about how selfish people have become, the more I like dogs .
That trail has been used for decades, now one lady can threaten the closure of many trails? I hope she gets a jury trial, she won't win it....
Apparently you can say that you were walking on a trail and not hiking on a trail and that changes everything! Lawyers HATE this trick! You just open your handy dandy thesaurus and change the word and there’s nothing a lawyer can do about it.
It's pretty ridiculous. She was walking to the beach, a recreation area. It was leisure. Such a technicality is really stupid.
