The appellate court agreed with Fields, finding there were issues of material fact existing from her use of the trail, and that the city wasn’t entitled to prevail on the recreational immunity defense as a matter of law. It further agreed that the trail in question wasn’t an unimproved access trail entitled to immunity under ORS 105.688(1)(c). And as whether the immunity applied to the trail as land adjacent to the ocean shore under (1)(a) was still undetermined, the court concluded material issues of fact existed.