On June 16, 2025 in the Oregon Senate Finance and Revenue Committee Chaired by Sen. Mark Meek, Senate Judiciary Chair Floyd Prozanski testified that the issue of recreational liability reform was, “Judiciary Territory.”
Below is a timeline of Judiciary Committee involvement in waiver reform in Oregon. Over the 10 years since this issue has been raised in the Legislature, the Judiciary Committees have had final say, repeatedly ignoring the negative social and economic impacts of the Bagley vs. Mt Bachelor decision, as well as the insurance crisis that has arisen over this time period, and killing the bills before them with no further action.
2014
The Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor ruling invalidated recreational liability waivers in Oregon, setting a crisis in motion.
2015:
Instance #1 where the Judiciary had the opportunity to act
Senate Bill 849 was introduced to address this issue and was assigned to Senator Floyd Prozanski’s Senate Judiciary Committee. A hearing was held on 03/30/2015. The bill remained in committee with no further evaluation. During related meetings, Chair Prozanski asked that supporters (recreation providers) and opponents (OTLA) work out a compromise. No action followed.
The 2015 bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee
Fall 2022
Recreation supporters, facing a deteriorating legal environment and increasing financial impacts, resolved to re-pursue liability reform legislation in 2023. They took note of Sen. Prozanski’s prior request to meet with those who oppose reform and held a virtual meeting with OTLA’s lobbyist. In good faith, supporters informed OTLA that there was an LC draft of proposed waiver legislation. OTLA indicated it would be happy to help “go after” insurers with the unfounded presumption that they were at fault. Supporters indicated that insurers were not at fault and if they got squeezed it would only compound negative impacts to recreation and fitness providers.
OTLA then pointed to two past instances of compromise language relating to equine activities and ag tourism. But neither solution would have provided any relief at all (and despite OTLA assertions, those prior legislative actions came to be viewed as largely worthless by the industries that were alleged to have benefitted). OTLA was informed that recreational liability reform was needed and that input on drafting and policy details was welcome.
OTLA was provided a copy of the draft and said they would provide input. Despite that good faith effort, and three attempts to solicit feedback, none was ever provided, and no further engagement occurred between the two parties ahead of or during the 2023 session.
2023
Instance #2 where the Judiciary had the opportunity to act
Senator Aaron Woods introduced SB 754, based on the LC draft discussed above. It was assigned to The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Prozanski, where it received a hearing. There was broad support from rec and fitness providers, user groups, non-profits, and others including Protect Oregon Recreation. A plaintiff’s attorney opposed the bill, falsely suggesting it would protect criminal sexual assault. Numerous injured parties testified that the bill would have deprived them of access to justice when the details of their case instances made it quite clear it would not have. In a private meeting, OTLA’s lobbyist inflammatorily accused Senator Woods (and recreation providers) of introducing a bill to “protect child molesters,” owing to a disingenuous reading of the bill and impugning the motives of proponents.
Prior to the hearing, Chair Prozanski indicated that he wanted a clean and constructive hearing and that if SB 754 were to pass, it would require additional conversations. Supporters executed the hearing to the Chair’s exacting specifications, staying on time, to the point, and respectful. An opposing attorney provided inflammatory testimony, ran over time, and clashed with the committee, which visibly irritated the Chair. After the hearing, the Chair’s staff member said it was the best hearing he’d seen so far this session, and given the behavior by the oppositional attorney suggested that a workgroup might not be needed after all.
Shortly after, the Chair informed Senator Woods and stakeholders that this had always been a courtesy hearing and the bill was never going to move. This was not communicated prior and stood in contrast to the comments from his staff. The Chair then said he’d do an interim workgroup, but that never occurred.
The 2023 bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee
2025:
Instance #3 where the Judiciary had the opportunity to act and chose not to
In December of 2024, OTLA was informed by supporters that another waiver reform bill would be introduced. Supporters asked whether there was any interest in discussing it and were informed there was not. In January, supporters followed up again in writing and requested an opportunity to discuss. OTLA did not respond to a scheduling request.
Representative John Lively introduced HB 3140, which was ultimately sponsored by 33 members of the House and 38 sponsors overall. The bill passed through House Economic Development with overwhelming public support, as the record shows, but stalled in the House Judiciary Committee, where it was denied a hearing. On the deadline to post the bill for a hearing in late March, the Judiciary Chair, Representative Jason Kropf, indicated he would not hear the bill but would begin a serious workgroup with haste. The workgroup only met twice and never focused on the problem at hand. The last meeting was in mid-May and there was no follow-up from the Chair despite several requests and dire news that Oregon ski areas were down to a single primary insurer.
HB 3140 died in the House Judiciary Committee
After HB 3140 died, Sen. Meek amended SB 1196 to include waiver reform. The bill was given multiple hearings in Senate Finance and Revenue with overwhelmingly supportive testimony. Yet, on June 16, 2025, Sen. Prozanski testified that the issue was “Judiciary Territory.”
The public record on SB 1196 (and that of HB 3140) illustrates the significant social and economic interests and complexities of the issue, as well as a tremendous amount of public support for reform. Oregon’s Judiciary Committees have had 10 years and repeated chances to act but have instead ignored these interests, squashed the issue, and let the bills die each time.
