. . .at least insofar as it applies to bar a negligence claim against a city arising from an injury that the plaintiff sustained while walking her dog in a city park. Affirming the dismissal of the complaint, the Court of Appeals (Deits, J.) held:
Because a negligence action against a city for injuries received in a public park was not recognized at common law, giving the city the benefit of the immunity provided by ORS 105.682 in this case does not deprive plaintiff of a remedy protected by Article I, section 10. Put another way, any "right" to recover from the city for injuries sustained in a public park is not an "absolute right" protected by Article I, section 10. Accordingly, giving the city the benefit of immunity under the recreational use statute does not violate the remedy clause.
See Schlesinger v. City of Portland, A121555 (July 13, 2005).
Comments