Oregon’s trail‑use immunity statute, ORS 105.668, offers targeted protection against negligence claims arising from the use of trails and similar structures located within public easements or unimproved rights of way by non‑motorized users. Beginning January 1, 2026, Senate Bill 179 expands the authority to opt into this immunity to all local governments (including special districts), complementing the statute’s automatic coverage for certain large cities and related parties. This overview explains when the immunity applies, who can benefit, and why districts with any connection to trail use should evaluate opting in as a practical way to reduce liability exposure – without creating any new duty to build, improve, maintain, or allow public access.

Overview

ORS 105.668 provides limited protection from lawsuits for personal injuries or property damage resulting from the use of a trail or other structure located within a public easement or unimproved right of way by users who are on foot, on an equine, or using a bicycle or other non-motorized conveyance. In those circumstances, users are barred from bringing a “private claim or right of action based on negligence.”

ORS 105.668(2) automatically extends this trail-use immunity to:

(a) cities with a population of 500,000 or more;

(b) officers, employees, or agents of such a city to the extent they are entitled to defense and indemnification under ORS 30.285;

(c) owners of lands abutting public easements or unimproved rights of way in cities with a population of 500,000 or more; or

(d) nonprofit corporations and their volunteers who work on the construction or maintenance of trails or the structures in a public easement or unimproved right of way in a city with a population of 500,000 or more.

Previously, only smaller cities and counties could “opt in” to this immunity by adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, order, or other regulation. Beginning January 1, 2026, Senate Bill 179 extends this opt-in authority to all “local governments,” as defined in ORS 174.116, which includes special districts.

Although the ORS 105.668 immunity only applies in limited circumstances, all special districts should evaluate whether opting in would provide meaningful protection. Districts that manage or maintain trails, paths, stairs, bridges, or related structures located within public easements or unimproved rights of way should strongly consider opting in. For example, a park district that constructs and maintains trails situated within public easements granted by subdivision developers or homeowners associations would not be covered simply because the city has opted in. Similarly, an irrigation district that has granted (or consented to) easements allowing the public to walk or bike along ditch-rider roads located on property the district does not own would not be protected unless it separately opts in.

It is important to note that opting in does not create any new duty to construct, improve, or maintain trails or to allow public access. Rather, it may reduce liability exposure where public use already exists.

When applicable, ORS 105.668(3) offers significant protections, and in some respects is broader than the recreational immunity available under ORS 105.682 because (1) it applies to all users, not just those engaged in “recreational purposes”, and (2) it extends beyond the owner of the land where the injury occurred. In short, for most districts with no public access or exposure, the benefit may be minimal, but districts with any connection to trail use should consider opting in. Below is a sample resolution that your district may use (or adapt into an ordinance, rule, order, or regulation) when opting into the trail-use immunity.

Download the Template