Snapping a fibula while helping a nonprofit repair a damaged trail. Dislocating a shoulder during cyclocross because the Belgian stair runup is slippery. The Fonz waterski-jumping a shark, biffing it and being eaten by said shark.
The first two scenarios illustrate the inherent risks of various outdoor fitness and recreation pursuits. The injuries incurred might be argued to be the result of ordinary negligence, and perhaps grounds for a lawsuit, since liability waivers became unenforceable in Oregon in 2014.
(The last example is a fan-fic retelling of a late “Happy Days” episode.)
Lawsuits are expensive. Catch too many, a shoestring guide company or a mom-and-pop ski area’s insurance premiums will rise, affecting the price for admission downstream.
The aim of one proposed bill for the upcoming legislative session, LC 215, sponsored by Sen. Mark Meek (D-Gladstone) and Rep. Emerson Levy (D-53) is to balance the responsibilities of participants — ages 18 and older — while doing inherently risky activities with the responsibilities of recreation and health and fitness providers, according to a Dec. 16 draft of the legislative concept. Legislative Concept 14 is tailored exclusively to the ski industry and is sponsored by Sen. Floyd Prozanski D-Eugene.
These soon-to-be bills, intent on protecting recreation providers from litigation stemming from claims of ordinary negligence, were introduced by the Oregon Senate and House Judiciary Committees in the second week of January. The House’s LC 215 provides a similar language to previous bills, such as SB 1196. Yet the broadness of that language has been cited by several lawmakers and stakeholders as needing refinement before it’s viable. LC 215 also intends to quantify the economic interdependency of operators, seasonal employees and local and state economies — a dataset distinct from what Travel Oregon already tracks regarding tourism activity.
LC 143 maintains that a ski area operator may require adult pass holders to release the operator from claims for ordinary negligence for injuries sustained while skiing. Operators would still be on the hook for gross negligence — for example, if a resort employee hits you with a snowmobile. Yet the concept doesn’t address the liability concerns of non-ski area operators such as fishing guides, athletic gyms and bicycle race promoters, for example.
Last year, Safehold Special Risk, one of two insurance companies in the country that insure ski areas, pulled out of Oregon, citing outsize losses in the state’s legal climate. That has left MountainGuard as the sole insurer for operators’ slopes — anywhere.
Legislative concepts 215 and 143 count as the third and fourth attempts to address what some call a liability crisis since 2014. That’s when the Oregon Supreme Court ixnayed the enforceability of liability waivers after the ruling on Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, in which a snowboarder sued the ski resort after becoming permanently paralyzed while performing a trick on a terrain park feature he said was faulty. Initially, a judge ruled that Bagley didn’t have a case because he signed a waiver — end of story. Bagley appealed, with the Oregon Supreme Court ultimately ruling that a “liability release is unconscionable and unenforceable if both its procedural and substantive elements are so against public policy that they protect negligent premises-management and allocate all negligent damages upon a paying customer with no bargaining power,” according to a legal summary by Willamette University Law.
Tate Metcalf, the co-owner of the Sisters Athletic Club, says the current unenforceability of liability waivers has wider-ranging implications than just for ski area operators, however, which are vastly outnumbered by non-ski operators in the state. And what about summer operations at ski resorts, such as mountain biking? As such, Metcalf is putting his hope in LC 215 catching legs.
“The ski resorts are getting the main headlines, as they should,” Metcalf said by phone. “The Northwest ski industry agrees that it shouldn’t just be parceled out to the ski resorts. I think we all need to be under the same umbrella because it affects us all identically.”
Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association doesn’t endorse LC 143, the ski-exclusive concept, owing to its assertion that its input was never solicited and the fact that multi-use recreation is a core value of all ski areas in the region. And non-ski summer jobs for these workers are a key component of ski area workforce development, according to a letter the advocacy group penned to Prozanski, LC 143’s sponsor. If lifties and ski patrollers can’t find work during the summer as guides for fishing or rafting, for example, ski area operators will be hard pressed to find their essential workers down the road.
Jordan Elliott, the president of the PNSAA, spoke on the phone about his optimism for LC 215, particularly for the component that addresses that economic overlap between ski and non-ski operators. Elliott, who is also the key founder of Protect Oregon Recreation, which produced last year’s SB 1196, intended to make liability waivers re-enforceable, yet died in committee, credits Levy for holding meetings with an array of legal minds and various lawmakers. He’s hopeful that collaboration will play out in work groups during the short legislative session, which begins Feb. 2 and runs 35 days. Elliott isn’t concerned about LC 215 not defining inherent risk; he says the protections before Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor were sufficient. Oregon’s Ski Statute, ORS 30.985, further articulates responsibilities.
“I’m very optimistic,” Elliott said. “For 10 years, ski areas have been the canary in the coal mine and the rest of Oregon is waking up.”
LC 215 also has the backing of a collective of organizations that include the Oregon Trails Coalition, Trailkeepers of Oregon and the Tualatin Riverkeepers. In a joint letter to Speaker Julie Fahey and House leaders Ben Bowman and Lucetta Elmer, these groups wrote: “With liability waiver reform, we seek to protect Oregon’s conservation organizations and recreation providers by reducing costs, creating greater certainty for small organizations and protecting access and opportunity for recreationists and volunteers alike.”
They added that insurance options have waned, premiums have risen, and the overall insurance industry has recorded record profits.
In the third fiscal quarter of 2025, the property/casualty insurance industry — in which liability insurance resides — enjoyed its most lucrative fiscal quarter in 25 years, according to a report by Standard & Poor‘s. With a combined ratio of 89.1 throughout the industry, insurance companies’ underwriting profitability outweighed money spent on claims and operating costs to the greatest extent in almost 100 consecutive fiscal quarters.
Stakeholders on both sides have acknowledged that there is no guarantee that insurers will re-enter Oregon, nor lower premiums.
New Legislative Concept 215 carries many concerns and similar language from the previous House Bill 3140 and Senate Bill 1196. Both died in committee. The Oregon Trial Lawyers Association and Rep. Jason Kropf, (D-54), a trial lawyer by trade, opposed previous bills.
Kropf, who spoke at the Jan. 8 City Club of Central Oregon forum dedicated to this topic, said the “broadness and ambiguity” of previous bills would have increased litigation — that’s why he signed onto neither bill. Reached by phone, Kropf said he appreciated that operators don’t want to be subject to lawsuits without merit.
“I think both concepts need work,” Kropf said. “It’s about creating clear legislation that tries to address as many ambiguities as possible — creating clear standards, clear responsibilities for participants and recreational activities and clear safety standards for those businesses. That requires a level of technical work that is still happening.”
A limiting factor of these considerations, Kropf added, is the finite window of the short legislative session, which will wrap up after 35 days. Yet, as he did at the City Club of Central Oregon forum, Kropf expressed a commitment to hammering out those details in the upcoming legislative session. So did Levy. Reached by email, Levy’s office said the representative is currently meeting with both sides on the recreational liability waiver issue and all involved are “working diligently to thread the needle that we need to keep Oregonians safe and businesses insured.” A spokesperson added that Levy’s office will share updated language at the start of the session.
“You’re always going to be pressed for time in how much you can figure out in that time period,” Kropf said. “Both interest groups and legislatures are going to continue to grind away on this and see where we can get.”
Lauren Bagley, the mother of snowboarder Myles Bagley, says this whole debate boils down to a matter of trading Oregonians’ constitutional right to bring a suit to trial for the benefit of insurance company profits. She wrote in an email to the Source that she doesn’t support LC 215 because “it’s just a trust-us proposal” that is focused on profits rather than the rights of those like her son.
“Profit-driven recreational businesses are attempting to stamp out the rights of everyday Oregonians whose lives have been irreparably harmed — or tragically ended — simply because the businesses failed to exercise ordinary care,” Bagley added.
“This liability issue with Myles’ unanimous Supreme Court case in 2014 started with the ski industry and I believe the focus should continue with the ski industry — only,” Bagley said. “I support LC 143 revising the current ORS Ski Statute.”
This article appears in the Source January 22, 2026.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
A review of the source’s prior reporting on this issue shows that support for change comes from a broad cross section of Oregonians. The most vocal opposition consistently comes from personal injury attorneys and the trial lawyers association. One earlier article quoted the owner of a Bend-based personal injury law firm stating that the firm opposed the proposed changes. The most recent article also notes that Bend Representative Jason Kropf is a trial lawyer by profession.
Two relevant issues are not addressed in the article. First, it does not connect information that the reporting appears to acknowledge but does not explicitly state, despite its relevance to the public. Second, it omits context that may be significant for residents of Bend and Oregon more broadly.
Although Representative Kropf has stated that he is committed to “hammering out those details,” his official actions in Salem have not aligned with that statement. As chair of the committee to which one of the 2025 bills was assigned, he had the authority to allow public discussion of the legislation. Recreation providers from Bend, whom he represents, requested of him that the bill simply be heard. HB 3140 did not advance in 2025 because the Rep. Kropf himself chose not to allow further formal discussion, effectively preventing the bill from being debated in Salem. As a result, his own constituents were denied the opportunity for the issue to be examined through the legislative process. After the opportunity was there for the taking and he refused, he now says he wants to “hammer it out”.
Additionally, the article does not mention that Representative Kropf is employed by the same personal injury law firm that publicly opposed the legislation. This relationship is publicly available on the firm’s website. The overlap between the firm’s opposition and their own employee’s role in halting the bill raises questions that are not explored in this reporting.