McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept., 482 P.3d 187

Plaintiff (McCormick) suffered severe injuries after diving into Lake Billy Chinook at The Cove Palisades State Park and sued the State (Oregon State Parks) for negligence.
Trial court granted summary judgment to the State, finding recreational immunity under ORS 105.682; Court of Appeals initially reversed on whether the State had "permitted" recreational use.
Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the "permitted" question, holding the State could be entitled to immunity and remanding to address whether the $5 day-use fee precluded immunity.
On remand, McCormick argued the $5 fee was a charge for park use (which would defeat immunity) and sought additional discovery about how the fee was used; the State argued the fee was a parking fee (which does not defeat immunity).
The trial court denied additional discovery and granted summary judgment for the State, relying on an administrative rule that designates the day-use permit as a parking fee; the Court of Appeals affirmed on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $5 day-use fee is a "charge for permission to use the land for recreational purposes" (which would bar recreational immunity) or a parking fee (which would not)	The $5 fee functionally charged for use of the park; factual disputes exist and further discovery on fee purpose is needed	The fee is a parking fee; administrative rule classifies it as such so it does not defeat immunity	Fee is a parking fee; no material factual dispute—administrative rule controls, so immunity not defeated
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying additional discovery about how the fee was used	Further discovery about how collected fees were spent could show the fee was actually a charge for recreational use	Evidence about fee expenditure is irrelevant to what privilege the fee purchased (parking) and thus discovery not needed	No abuse of discretion; evidence of post-collection use would not change the ordinary-meaning characterization of the fee

McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept., 293 Or App 197 (Or. App. 2018) (Court of Appeals initially found disputed fact on "permitted" recreational use)
McCormick v. State Parks and Recreation Dept., 366 Or 452 (Or. 2020) (Oregon Supreme Court held State had "permitted" recreational use and remanded to consider fee issue)
Wieck v. Hostetter, 274 Or App 457 (Or. App. 2015) (summary judgment review where movant bears the burden requires showing all reasonable factfinders must rule for movant)
State v. Corcilius, 294 Or App 20 (Or. App. 2018) (ordinary words given ordinary meaning absent contrary legislative intent)