Oregon lawmakers plan to address liability waivers for recreational activities in 2026

SALEM, Ore. (KATU) — A bipartisan group of lawmakers is once again pushing to change Oregon’s liability laws before they participate in recreational activities such as skiing or going to the gym.

“It’s clear to me that we must take action in the short session to finally address this; a failure to act in 2026 will mean even higher insurance costs, loss of insurance coverage altogether, and eliminate hundreds or 1000s of Oregon jobs,” said State Sen. Mark Meek, D-Gladstone.

Liability waivers in surrounding states, such as California and Washington, are generally enforceable, unless the operator acts in a “grossly negligent” fashion. However, those waivers are not enforceable in Oregon because of the 2014 Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court.

The state’s highest court ruled that the liability waiver Mt. Bachelor required skiers and snowboarders to sign could not automatically shield the resort from lawsuits.

The case involved an 18-year-old snowboarder who was paralyzed after a terrain-park jump. Even though he has signed a release, the Oregon Supreme Court found the waiver “unconscionable”; essentially too one-sided and unfair.

The decision didn’t determine whether the resort was negligent. Still, it allowed the injured rider to take his case to court and made clear that Oregon ski areas cannot rely on overly broad waivers to avoid responsibility in case of an accident.

Lawmakers proposed similar bills in the 2025 long legislative session. Both bills died despite bipartisan support.

“This is a $17 billion industry,” said Sen. Jeff Helfrich, R-Hood River, to ARC On The Road. “This is a problem, and we need to get it fixed. And if we don’t, people are going to suffer.”

Ski resort impacts

Ski resorts said the Bagley decision has reshaped Oregon’s insurance landscape, leaving recreation operators with rising premiums and few coverage options.

One major insurer, Safehold Special Risk, withdrew from Oregon this year. As a result, resorts were forced to raise prices and reassess their long-term financial stability.

Operators warn that the situation threatens not only ski areas but also gyms, bike parks, rafting companies, and other recreation providers across the state.

“Ultimately, we had to pass on some of those costs,” said John Burton of Timberline Lodge to ARC On The Road in November, noting that lift tickets rose by roughly 17%.

READ MORE | Timberline Lodge warns of higher ticket prices as insurance costs soar 586% since 2020

Burton said the lack of competition among insurers is now one of the industry’s biggest risks.

“With basically one insurer in the state, it’s not a competitive market,” he said. “Which way do you think that’s going to go?”

Resort operators argued the consequences will ripple across rural communities and the broader outdoor economy.

“This is going to trickle down into limiting access to recreation for people,” Burton said. “It supplies a ton of jobs, and if these things start going away, you can imagine what the negative impacts are.”

He also pushed back against criticism that resorts are seeking blanket immunity.

“It’s categorically untrue and mischaracterized,” said Burton. “All we are asking for is that operators meet the required level of care, and once that’s done, people take personal responsibility for participating in inherently risky activities.”

Sen. Meek told KATU on Tuesday that the state’s current liability laws are putting significant strain on not only ski resorts, but all recreational businesses.

“Oregon needs to get back into alignment with other Western states and recognize and enforce liability waivers, and that’s what we’re gonna be proposing,” said Meek.

Opposition to changing liability laws

The Oregon Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) argued that the legislation proposed in 2025 goes too far and would undermine fundamental constitutional rights.

In testimony to lawmakers in November, Hans Bernard with OTLA said the Bagley decision protects the public by ensuring businesses can still be held accountable for ordinary negligence, not just gross negligence or reckless behavior.

He warned that the past proposal would’ve made it extremely difficult for injured Oregonians to have their cases heard.

“The court found that waivers that asked Oregonians to forfeit their constitutional right to a jury trial are unconscionable and thus unenforceable,” said Hans Bernard of the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. “We have yet to see any [ski areas] cease operations.”

Bernard said past versions of the bill were written so broadly that they would have applied to anyone participating in recreational activity, regardless of the industry.

“The victim would have had to have proven that the driver was consciously indifferent when he ran her over,” he said, referencing a recent Timberline snowplow injury case.

He also cautioned lawmakers about the long-term implications.

“What is the threshold for asking Oregonians to sign away their constitutional rights?” Bernard said. “If Oregonians were being asked to forfeit their right to keep and bear arms or the right for a woman to vote, would you have the same position?”

Michael Fuller, founder of the Underdog Law Group and a member of the OTLA, told KATU on Tuesday that changing Oregonians’ liability waiver laws would remove key constitutional safeguards and shift the financial burden of injuries away from businesses and onto consumers.

He said the current system allows people hurt by negligence, at a ski resort, gym or other recreation business, to take their case to a jury. Something he stressed is a fundamental right that should not be signed away in fine print.

“Oregon courts have decided that it’s unfair to waive a person’s right to a jury trial by putting that in the fine print of a contract,” said Fuller. “So generally, in Oregon, you’re entitled to your constitutional right to a jury trial if you get injured and you believe that it was the fault of somebody else.”

Fuller warned that allowing liability waivers for ordinary negligence would block most injury claims, leaving people to cover enormous medical expenses themselves.

“Ultimately, a bill like this would just give the edge in court to an insurance company. And for medical bills that go unpaid, the taxpayers would just be liable to cover those expenses,” said Fuller.

Why the bill failed and where this goes

The 2025 House Bill was in the House Committee on Judiciary upon adjournment, meaning the bill failed to advance out of committee.

State Rep. Jason Kropf, the chair of the House Committee on Judiciary, did not give KATU News a direct answer as to why the bill failed to advance out of committee.

“Every state approaches this issue in different ways, and we need to make sure any legislation serves the needs of Oregon. Previous legislation simply required additional work like many other proposals,” said Kropf.

Kropf said discussions around this sort of legislation will continue into the 2026 legislative session.

“Work is needed to set clear safety standards, clear responsibilities for participants, and clear legal standards. I will continue to dig into this work with my colleagues in the upcoming session,” said Kropf.

A similar Senate Bill advanced out of its committee, but failed to get a vote on the Senate Floor.

Meek, who chaired the committee that advanced the bill out of in 2025, said he is working with state agencies and other organizations to gather past studies and surveys to inform his and other lawmakers’ ongoing discussions.

“It is my commitment to address this issue in 2026, the short session, with the urgency and care it deserves,” said Meek in November.

Meek said that the Senate bill did not move forward because lawmakers “ran out of time,” and the House bill died “unilaterally”.

“I think those chairs had too much power to just unilaterally make their own decisions ’cause we had the votes,” said Meek. “We do have the votes now in both the House and the Senate to pass this bill. And if we get a legitimate hearing both in the House and Senate, I think that we will be able to pass my proposed legislation.”