Oregon has a modified inherent danger scheme whereby skiers assume the inherent risks of skiing insofar as they are reasonably obvious, expected, and necessary[JC1] . It has been held in Oregon courts that by providing that a skier assumes the “inherent risks of skiing,” the legislature reduced ski area operators’ heightened common law duty to discover and guard against certain natural and inherent risks of harm. Importantly though, it has been further found that the Skier Responsibility Law did not abrogate the common-law principle that skiers do not assume responsibility for unreasonable conditions created by a ski area operator insofar as those conditions are not inherent to the activity. Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 340 P.3d 27, 41 (Or. 2014); see also Nolan v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc., 317 Or. 328, 336, 856 P.2d 305 (1993) (Skier Responsibility Law provides that “[t]o the extent an injury is caused by an inherent risk of skiing, a skier will not recover against a ski area operator; to the extent an injury is a result of [ski area operator] negligence, comparative negligence applies”). The Supreme Court of Oregon has held that the enforcement of a release between a skier and the operator of a ski area was unconscionable. Bagley, 340 P.3d at 45; see alsoBecker v. Hoodoo Ski Bowl Developers, Inc., 346 P.3d 620, 624 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).