Oregon Mom Says a Muddy Slope Caused Her Fall at a Pumpkin Patch. Now She’s Suing for $2 Million, Citing Post-Traumatic Mental Distress
"Not necessary."
A popular family-run farm in Oregon is facing a $2.2 million lawsuit after a mother says she slipped and broke multiple bones while helping her child off a zipline. According to Daily Mail, Paige Jean Smith filed the lawsuit against Red Berry Barn in Oregon Circuit Court in August, alleging the farm was responsible for injuries she suffered during a visit two autumns earlier.
The complaint alleges Smith was helping her child off the zipline on October 20, 2024, when she was directed to exit the raised platform by walking down a slope. “At that time and place, the sloped egress was muddy, slippery, and/or otherwise unsafe for patrons to use as a means of exiting the raised platform,” the complaint states. Smith says she fell while descending and broke her tibia, fibula, and ankle.
Her lawyers say she has since developed chronic ankle pain, arthritis, and upper body injuries, and underwent surgery. The complaint also lists depression, post-traumatic mental distress, and a persistent burning sensation in her injured ankle among her alleged injuries.
The Lawsuit Hinges on Whether the Zipline Even Counts as Farming
The lawsuit accuses Red Berry Barn of negligence, arguing the zipline had no agricultural purpose and wasn’t necessary for a pumpkin patch. It also alleges the farm failed to properly instruct patrons on zipline safety and created an unreasonable risk of falling. Smith’s lawyers are seeking $2 million in damages, including $155,000 in past medical expenses and $50,000 for future care.
The farm’s owners, Aaron and Erika Wilcott, are named as defendants and have not yet responded to the allegations in court. The outlet said it reached out to Smith’s representation and Red Berry Barn for comment. That specific argument, that the zipline served no agricultural purpose, appears aimed at a real legal protection Oregon farms can otherwise claim.
Under Oregon’s Agritourism Inherent Risk Law, ORS 30.673, a farm that posts the legally required warning signs generally isn’t liable for injuries arising from the “inherent risks” of an agritourism activity, things like uneven ground or a participant’s own carelessness. But that protection only applies to activities that actually qualify as agritourism under the statute’s definition, and by framing the zipline as unrelated to farming, Smith’s complaint is effectively arguing the immunity shouldn’t apply to it at all.
Even where that immunity does apply, it isn’t absolute. Oregon’s law doesn’t protect a farm from liability for its own negligence, meaning claims that a hazard was created or ignored by the operator, rather than being an unavoidable feature of the activity itself, can still proceed regardless of posted signage. Oregon law also gives the farm a defense worth understanding, separate from the agritourism statute entirely.
Under Oregon’s modified comparative negligence rule, ORS 31.600, a plaintiff can still recover damages even if found partly at fault for their own injury, as long as their share of the blame doesn’t exceed 50 percent. If a jury decided Smith bore some responsibility for the fall, say, for how she navigated the slope, her final award would be reduced by that exact percentage. But if she were found 51 percent or more at fault, she would recover nothing at all.
Lawsuits against attractions over falls during a ride’s exit aren’t unusual. A Pennsylvania amusement park recently faced a six-figure demand after a mother said her foot got caught on a ride’s loading platform while she was holding her child.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
