Actions and Suits in Particular Cases

ORS 30.265
Scope of liability of public body, officers, employees and agents

  • liability in nuclear incident


(1)

Subject to the limitations of ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive), every public body is subject to civil action for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598 (Car or van pools).

(2)

The sole cause of action for a tort committed by officers, employees or agents of a public body acting within the scope of their employment or duties and eligible for representation and indemnification under ORS 30.285 (Public body shall indemnify public officers) or 30.287 (Counsel for public officer) is an action under ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive). The remedy provided by ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive) is exclusive of any other action against any such officer, employee or agent of a public body whose act or omission within the scope of the officer’s, employee’s or agent’s employment or duties gives rise to the action. No other form of civil action is permitted.

(3)

If an action under ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive) alleges damages in an amount equal to or less than the damages allowed under ORS 30.271 (Limitations on liability of state for personal injury and death), 30.272 (Limitations on liability of local public bodies for personal injury and death) or 30.273 (Limitations on liability of public bodies for property damage or destruction), the sole cause of action for a tort committed by officers, employees or agents of a public body acting within the scope of their employment or duties and eligible for representation and indemnification under ORS 30.285 (Public body shall indemnify public officers) or 30.287 (Counsel for public officer) is an action against the public body. If an action is filed against an officer, employee or agent of a public body, and the plaintiff alleges damages in an amount equal to or less than the damages allowed under ORS 30.271 (Limitations on liability of state for personal injury and death), 30.272 (Limitations on liability of local public bodies for personal injury and death) or 30.273 (Limitations on liability of public bodies for property damage or destruction), the court upon motion shall substitute the public body as the defendant. Substitution of the public body as the defendant does not exempt the public body from making any report required under ORS 742.400 (Duty to report claim of professional negligence to licensing board).

(4)

If an action under ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive) alleges damages in an amount greater than the damages allowed under ORS 30.271 (Limitations on liability of state for personal injury and death), 30.272 (Limitations on liability of local public bodies for personal injury and death) or 30.273 (Limitations on liability of public bodies for property damage or destruction), the action may be brought and maintained against an officer, employee or agent of a public body, whether or not the public body is also named as a defendant. An action brought under this subsection is subject to the limitations on damages imposed under ORS 30.271 (Limitations on liability of state for personal injury and death), 30.272 (Limitations on liability of local public bodies for personal injury and death) or 30.273 (Limitations on liability of public bodies for property damage or destruction), and the total combined amount recovered in the action may not exceed those limitations for a single accident or occurrence without regard to the number or types of defendants named in the action.

(5)

Every public body is immune from liability for any claim for injury to or death of any person or injury to property resulting from an act or omission of an officer, employee or agent of a public body when such officer, employee or agent is immune from liability.

(6)

Every public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598 (Car or van pools), are immune from liability for:

(a)

Any claim for injury to or death of any person covered by any workers’ compensation law.

(b)

Any claim in connection with the assessment and collection of taxes.

(c)

Any claim based upon the performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.

(d)

Any claim that is limited or barred by the provisions of any other statute, including but not limited to any statute of ultimate repose.

(e)

Any claim arising out of riot, civil commotion or mob action or out of any act or omission in connection with the prevention of any of the foregoing.

(f)

Any claim arising out of an act done or omitted under apparent authority of a law, resolution, rule or regulation that is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable except to the extent that they would have been liable had the law, resolution, rule or regulation been constitutional, valid and applicable, unless such act was done or omitted in bad faith or with malice.

(7)

This section applies to any action of any officer, employee or agent of the state relating to a nuclear incident, whether or not the officer, employee or agent is acting within the scope of employment, and provided the nuclear incident is covered by an insurance or indemnity agreement under 42 U.S.C. 2210.

(8)

Subsection (6)(c) of this section does not apply to any discretionary act that is found to be the cause or partial cause of a nuclear incident covered by an insurance or indemnity agreement under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 2210, including but not limited to road design and route selection. [1967 c.627 §§2,3,10; 1969 c.429 §1; 1975 c.609 §12; 1977 c.823 §2; 1981 c.490 §4; 1985 c.731 §31; 1987 c.705 §7; 1991 c.861 §1; 2005 c.22 §19; 2007 c.803 §4; 2011 c.270 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Public officers and employes are generally immune from liability for alleged negligence in planning and designing highways. Smith v. Cooper, 256 Or 485, 475 P2d 78 (1970); Leonard v. Jackson, 6 Or App 613, 488 P2d 838 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Exception for tort claims by persons covered by workers' compensation laws was constitutional. Edwards v. State Military Dept., 8 Or App 620, 494 P2d 891 (1972), Sup Ct review denied; Millspaugh v. Port of Portland, 65 Or App 389, 671 P2d 743 (1983), Sup Ct review denied; Taylor v. Lane County, 213 Or App 633, 162 P3d 356 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Determination of whether public employee is acting in discretionary function or in ministerial function is a question of law to be decided by court. Weaver v. Lane County, 10 Or App 281, 499 P2d 1351 (1972)

Maintenance of highway is not "discretionary function or duty." Lanning v. State Hwy. Comm., 15 Or App 310, 515 P2d 1355 (1973)

Decision to erect highway warning signs is discretionary function for which there is immunity under paragraph (2)(d). Turrini v. Gulick, 16 Or App 167, 517 P2d 1230 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

The act of selecting a site for a public gathering is a discretionary function for which no liability may attach; however, once selected the duty to maintain the site in a safe condition is a ministerial function for which liability may attach. Baker v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 20 Or App 277, 531 P2d 716 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Maintenance of its fairgrounds by the county was clearly a ministerial rather than a discretionary duty. Baker v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 20 Or App 277, 531 P2d 716 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Immunity from liability for claim in connection with assessment and collection of taxes encompasses any manifestation of power of taxation. Hall v. City of Hillsboro, 29 Or App 161, 562 P2d 597 (1977)

In suit under Oregon Tort Claims Act burden is on defendant to plead immunity, and plaintiff has no burden to plead in his complaint that conduct complained of is not immune from liability. Hulen v. City of Hermiston, 30 Or App 1141, 569 P2d 665 (1977)

The scope of a public employe's or agent's common law immunity and the immunity afforded by this section are the same. Pickett v. Washington County, 31 Or App 1263, 572 P2d 1070 (1977)

City decision holding up processing of pending applications for building permits in order to establish Design Review Committee was discretionary and thus demurrer to complaint alleging pecuniary damage from delay in processing was properly sustained. Robert Randall Co. v. City of Milwaukie, 32 Or App 631, 575 P2d 170 (1978)

Where large boulder which projected over shoulder of county roadway and onto traveled portion of road was consequence of initial design of road, placement of warning sign with respect to boulder was discretionary act, and county was immune from motorist's suit alleging negligent failure to post warning sign. Mayse v. Coos County, 35 Or App 779, 583 P2d 7 (1978)

In wrongful death action resulting from auto collision at intersection designed and maintained by county and allegedly identified by county as hazardous condition for which county authorized minor changes in traffic control, allegations of plaintiffs complaint were not specific enough to determine whether county's alleged delay in changes was conduct falling within discretionary act exception to this section. Moody v. Lane County, 36 Or App 231, 584 P2d 335 (1978)

Design and installation of traffic signals were discretionary acts, and city was immune from liability for collision which occurred at intersection where driver was able to see green as well as red light from his position. Gallison v. City of Portland, 37 Or App 145, 586 P2d 393 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Operation or application of traffic signal constitutes exercise of discretionary function for which public bodies are immune. Morris v. Oregon State Transportation Comm. 38 Or App 331, 590 P2d 260 (1979)

County may be sued if it, or its officers, employes and agents acting within scope of their employment or duties, deprive person of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by United States Constitution. Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or App 583, 603 P2d 1216 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

In damage action for fraudulent misrepresentation, college personnel who assured student that certain material and equipment would be available for use in instruction were not performing immune "discretionary function." Dizick v. Umpqua Community College, 287 Or 303, 599 P2d 444 (1979)

Police officer was not immune, as matter of law, from liability for conversion where jury could have found that he ate most of sturgeon which he seized under mistaken impression that it had been illegally caught, since such an act would not be within scope of his employment or duties. Dickens v. DeBolt, 288 Or 3, 602 P2d 246 (1979)

Fire chief was immune from any liability for inspection of movie theater, during regularly scheduled showing of movie, to discover fire safety violations as this was discretionary act within scope of his employment or duties. Disney-Marine Co., Inc. v. Webb, 47 Or App 985, 615 P2d 1125 (1980)

Where plaintiff, in action against county for death of her horses in fire while horses were stabled at county fairgrounds, alleged that county failed to equip barn with alarm system and adequate fire-fighting equipment, county's decision on those matters was discretionary and it was immune from any liability for those failures. Dundas v. Lincoln County, 48 Or App 1025, 618 P2d 978 (1980)

Even if Children's Services Division's failure to follow required APA rulemaking procedures could constitute tort within meaning of Tort Claims Act, CSD was immune from tort liability where it terminated its benefit program without prior rulemaking procedures. Burke v. Children's Services Division, 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)

Highway Division was not immune from liability for its arrangement of traffic lights and design of shielding for traffic lights. Stevenson v. State ex rel Dept. of Transportation, 290 Or 3, 619 P2d 247 (1980)

Alleged negligence of county's employes in failing to inspect, maintain and repair steel grid surface of bridge was not discretionary act, immune from tort liability, even though technical expertise may have been required. Saracco v. Multnomah County, 50 Or App 145, 622 P2d 1118 (1981)

Immunity from liability for performance of discretionary duty is inapplicable to acts of employment discrimination. Clackamas Co. Fire Protection Dist. v. Bureau of Labor, 50 Or App 337, 624 P2d 141 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Applicability of immunity for performance or nonperformance of discretionary act depends not on "discretionary" nature of overall function of public body, but degree of discretion, if any, allowed individual defendant whose immunity is at issue. Bradford v. Davis, 290 Or 855, 865 P2d 1376 (1981)

Acts of defendant, state agency, in issuing and overseeing certificate of approval for day care facility were not, as matter of law, discretionary, allowing immunity from liability under this section, absent showing that decisions were matters of policy. Brasel v. Childrens Services Div., 56 Or App 559, 642 P2d 696 (1982)

Immunity provision in former version of this section did not apply to city's invalid attempt, by charter provision, to exempt itself from liability for its torts. Brookwell v. Frakes, 56 Or App 687, 642 P2d 1183 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Tort Claims Act bars recovery for injuries suffered by prisoner shot by prison employes during riot. Albers v. Whitley, 546 F Supp 726 (1982)

Allegations that agency did not develop adequate procedures to implement underlying policy did not, on their face, pertain to discretionary governmental acts and trial court did not err by denying motion to strike. Pendergrass v. State of Oregon, 66 Or App 607, 675 P2d 505 (1984)

Parole Board is immune from tort liability for paroling inmate under statutory scheme existing at time of decisions in 1974 and 1977. Hendricks v. State, 67 Or App 453, 678 P2d 759 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Failure of city to inspect and repair sidewalks is discretionary act and immune from liability. Sager v. City of Portland, 68 Or App 808, 684 P2d 600 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Where agency authority to act is discretionary, agency has no mandatory duty to consider whether to take action. Miller v. Grants Pass Irrigation Dist., 297 Or 312, 686 P2d 324 (1984)

Where public body exercises consideration of alternative methods of fulfilling non-discretionary duty to act, body is immune to suit for failure to make discretionary choice among alternatives before injury occurred. Miller v. Grants Pass Irrigation Dist., 297 Or 312, 686 P2d 324 (1984)

Where allegation is that SAIF conspired with employer to eliminate worker's entitlement to benefits, there is no discretionary act immunity. Crosby v. SAIF, 73 Or App 372, 699 P2d 198 (1985)

City's failure to inspect sidewalk on which plaintiff fell was discretionary act and city was immune from liability for fall. Ramsey v. City of Salem, 76 Or App 29, 707 P2d 1295 (1985)

Employer of injured employe may not recover indemnity from alleged negligent public body when public body has no liability whatsoever to injured employe due to this section. Jones Oregon Stevedoring v. Port of Portland, 82 Or App 608, 729 P2d 582 (1986), Sup Ct review denied

Where plaintiff sued county, claiming court clerk negligently failed to docket divorce decree and accompanying property settlement agreement as judgment, clerk and county were protected by judicial immunity because clerk was acting under instructions of judge in proper judicial capacity. Praggastis v. Clackamas County, 87 Or App 378, 742 P2d 669 (1987), aff'd 305 Or 419, 752 P2d 302 (1988)

In absence of evidence that decision regarding installation of warning signs at intersection was made as policy judgment by person or body with governmental discretion, decision is not immune from liability. Little v. Wimmer, 303 Or 580, 739 P2d 564 (1987)

APA provided exclusive procedure for review, where alleged tort liability was premised on finding that Highway Division's order in other than contested case was improper. Clarke Electric, Inc. v. State Highway Division, 93 Or App 693, 763 P2d 1199 (1988)

Exemption from liability for claims of injury or death by person covered under workers' compensation law does not violate Privileges and Immunities Clause of Oregon Constitution. Jungen v. State of Oregon, 94 Or App 101, 764 P2d 938 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

This section does not violate section 20, Article I, Oregon Constitution. Ward v. Romig, 101 Or App 235, 790 P2d 44 (1990); Gunn v. Lane County, 173 Or App 97, 20 P3d 247 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Actions of employee who fails to follow official policy are not immune as performance of discretionary function or duty. Egner v. City of Portland, 103 Or App 623, 798 P2d 721 (1990)

City ordinances that imposed concomitant responsibility and liability on abutting property owners do not relieve city of liability for nondiscretionary duty to maintain visibility of stop sign. Pritchard v. City of Portland, 310 Or 235, 796 P2d 1184 (1990)

Police officer's decision to pursue vehicle was not policy judgment that would render decision discretionary and immune from liability. Lowrimore v. Dimmitt, 310 Or 291, 797 P2d 1027 (1990); Dee v. Pomeroy, 109 Or App 114, 818 P2d 523 (1991); Hawkins v. City of La Grande, 315 Or 57, 843 P2d 400 (1992)

When statute is discretionary by its terms, public entity is immune from liability if entity does not take action pursuant to statute. Fielding v. Heiderich, 113 Or App 280, 832 P2d 1244 (1992)

Where claim included allegations of negligence in city's implementation or performance of inspection and maintenance program, discretionary immunity did not apply. Tozer v. City of Eugene, 115 Or App 464, 838 P2d 1104 (1992)

Statute expressly retains state's immunity from tort for claims alleging unconstitutional taxation. Anderson v. Dept. of Rev., 313 Or 1, 828 P2d 1001 (1992)

Where principal was acting as responsible policy-making official, decisions concerning number and location of security personnel within high school were classic policy choices entitled to discretionary immunity. Mosley v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 315 Or 85, 843 P2d 415 (1992)

Probation officer entitled to judicial immunity against negligent supervision claim because officer carried out directive of court and acted within authority granted by court. Jones-Clark v. Severe, 118 Or App 270, 846 P2d 1197 (1993)

Worker was entitled to pursue employment related intentional tort claim against state even though worker was person covered by workers' compensation coverage. Moustachetti v. State of Oregon, 122 Or App 598, 858 P2d 487 (1993), aff'd on other grounds, 319 Or 319, 877 P2d 66 (1994)

City was immune from negligence claim based on failure to develop inspection and maintenance program. Bakr v. Elliott, 125 Or App 1, 864 P2d 1340 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Ordinance providing for indemnity by joint tortfeasor did not constitute illegal grant of immunity to local government where indemnity obligation under ordinance included amount of any contribution payable by local government to joint tortfeasor who was indemnity obligor. Simons v. City of Portland, 132 Or App 74, 887 P2d 824 (1994)

Allegation of same facts underlying workers' compensation claim did not create employer immunity to tort claim for separate injury. Moustachetti v. State of Oregon, 319 Or 319, 877 P2d 66 (1994)

General maritime law does not preempt or abrogate state sovereign immunity. Ortega v. Port of Portland, 147 Or App 489, 936 P2d 1037 (1997)

Grant of immunity is constitutional where plaintiff is not left wholly without remedy for injury. Brentano v. Marion County, 150 Or App 538, 946 P2d 705 (1997); Gunn v. Lane County, 173 Or App 97, 20 P3d 247 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Public body immunity from liability applies only to financial liability for damages and does not preclude grant of injunctive relief against public body. Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service Dist., 327 Or 1, 956 P2d 964 (1998)

Existence of common law nuisance may permit injunctive relief against public body, but does not overcome immunity given public body for discretionary acts. Mark v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 158 Or App 355, 974 P2d 716 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Judicial immunity does not apply where jurisdiction is absent, but does apply where jurisdiction exists and is erroneously exercised. Heusel v. Multnomah County District Attorney's Office, 163 Or App 51, 989 P2d 465 (1999)

To qualify for discretionary immunity, government function or duty must result from exercise of judgment involving public policy by public body or person with authority or responsibility to make policy choice. Ramirez v. Hawaii T and S Enterprises, Inc., 179 Or App 416, 39 P3d 931 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Public body immunity provided by workers' compensation coverage applies for claims arising from type of common law legal injury or wrong for which legislature intended coverage to provide substitute remedy. Stone v. Finnerty, 182 Or App 452, 50 P3d 1179 (2002), modified 184 Or App 111, 55 P3d 531 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Where workers' compensation law provides remedy for type of legal injury or wrong suffered, public body is immune from liability notwithstanding that certain types of damage arising out of legal injury or wrong are not compensable under workers' compensation law. Stone v. Finnerty, 182 Or App 452, 50 P3d 1179 (2002), modified 184 Or App 111, 55 P3d 531 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Discretionary immunity defense requires evidence regarding actual consideration process by which decision was reached. Sande v. City of Portland, 185 Or App 262, 59 P3d 595 (2002)

Decision is discretionary decision entitled to immunity if within nature and scope of duties delegated to decision maker, regardless of office or level of position held by decision maker. Garrison v. Deschutes County, 334 Or 264, 48 P3d 807 (2002)

Limitation on cause of action for tort committed by employee of public body does not, on its face, violate provisions of Oregon Constitution regarding remedy for injury, trial by jury or granting of privileges and immunities. Jensen v. Whitlow, 334 Or 412, 51 P3d 599 (2002)

Waiver of state immunity against suit does not waive prohibition under United States Constitution against person suing own state in federal court. Estate of Pond v. Oregon, 322 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (D. Or. 2004)

Public body is immune from claims covered by workers' compensation law regardless of whether public body was employer of injured party. Taylor v. Lane County, 213 Or App 633, 162 P3d 356 (2007), Sup Ct review denied

Determination that existing policy has been complied with is not policy decision entitled to discretionary immunity. John v. City of Gresham, 214 Or App 305, 165 P3d 1177 (2007)

Whether limited recovery against public body is adequate substitute for common law action against public employee is subject to "as applied" comparison between recovery limit and amount of damages recoverable at common law. Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 343 Or 581, 175 P3d 418 (2007)

For public body to be subject to tort for actions of agent, public body must have same ability to control physical details of agent performance that public body has to control physical details of employee performance. Vaughn v. First Transit, Inc., 346 Or 128, 206 P3d 181 (2009)

If plaintiff is injured by person in scope of that person's duties as employee of more than one public body, then plaintiff can bring action against each employer. Ackerman v. OHSU Medical Group, 233 Or App 511, 227 P3d 744 (2010)

This section provides immunity to public actor who, without bad faith or malice, relies on public actor's plausible interpretation of law where interpretation ultimately is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable. Thus, where defendants, county and county sheriff's office, detained plaintiff for 38 hours based on defendants' interpretation of 8C.F.R. 287.7(d) as mandate, this section provides immunity to defendants. Cruz v. Multnomah County, 279 Or App 1, 381 P3d 856 (2016)

Department of Human Services employee decisions to remove child from grandparents and place child in protective custody were not actions entitled to discretionary immunity because actions neither involved creation of governmental policy nor were actions of employee who is required to apply otherwise protected policy choice, but rather were no more than determination of facts and simple cause-and-effect relationships. Nathan v. Dept. of Human Services, 288 Or App 554, 407 P3d 857 (2017)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Public agency's liability for injury to member of public during evacuation drill at Trojan nuclear plant, (1980) Vol 40, p 180; Costs of defending and indemnifying county-funded staffs of district attorneys and circuit and district court judges under state Tort Liability Program, (1980) Vol 41, p 90; inapplicability of constitutional provision requiring payments based on government regulations restricting use of property, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

Law Review Citations

22 WLR 147 (1986); 23 WLR 493, 507 (1987); 67 OLR 859 (1988); 74 OLR 379 (1995); 38 WLR 657 (2002)

§§ 30.260 to 30.300

Notes of Decisions

Dismissal of action for personal injuries was improper where based solely upon allegations of complaint and allegations did not state sufficient facts for court to determine whether particular governmental act was discretionary function or duty. Hulen v. City of Hermiston, 30 Or App 1141, 569 P2d 665 (1977)

Where plaintiff was mistakenly arrested following computer retrieval of identifying and locator data for individual of similar name, demurrer as to three of defendants was properly sustained because plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts from which duty to plaintiff could be discerned, and summary judgment as to two of defendants was improperly allowed because affidavits did not reveal whether defendant's acts were discretionary or ministerial. Murphy v. City of Portland, 36 Or App 745, 585 P2d 732 (1978)

Complaint allegation that plaintiff submitted application for building permit in proper form was sufficient to allow prosecution of claim against public officer. Dykeman v. State, 39 Or App 629, 593 P2d 1183 (1979)

Even if Children's Services Division's failure to follow required APA rulemaking procedures could constitute tort within meaning of these sections, CSD was immune from tort liability under ORS 30.265 (3)(f) where it terminated its benefit program without prior rulemaking procedures. Burke v. Children's Services Division, 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)

Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. 1981 are subject to two-year statute of limitations of Tort Claims Act. Loiseau v. Dept. of Human Resources, 558 F Supp 521 (1983)

Where police officer pursued plaintiff in marked police car with lights and siren activated in area defendant was assigned to patrol, with no known motive other than to fulfill duty as police officer, trial court was correct in concluding that defendant was acting in course and scope of employment, despite plaintiff's claim that defendant's acts were excessive. Brungardt v. Barton, 69 Or App 440, 685 P2d 1021 (1984)

Plaintiff in 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought under the Oregon Tort Claims Act against municipality for actions of its employes need not show that employes acted according to "custom or usage" as in federal §1983 action. Haase v. City of Eugene, 85 Or App 107, 735 P2d 1258 (1987)

Limitations of Oregon Tort Claims Act do not apply to claims brought in state court alleging violation of federal Civil Rights Act. Rogers v. Saylor, 306 Or 267, 760 P2d 232 (1988)

Mayor was immune from liability in tort claim under this section where former chief of police brought tort action in connection with her removal from office. Harrington v. City of Portland, 708 F Supp 1561 (D. Or. 1988)

Where plaintiffs brought action under 42 U.S.C 1983 and this section after defendant Children's Services Division employees removed plaintiff's child from home following reports of abuse, defendants are entitled to absolute immunity under this section for their discretionary acts as provided by ORS 30.265 (3). Tennyson v. Children's Services Division, 308 Or 80, 775 P2d 1365 (1989)

There is no legislative purpose to extend definition of "agent" to control to include ostensible agent when doctrine of apparent authority is intended to achieve different purpose. Giese v. Bay Area Health District, 101 Or App 410, 790 P2d 1198 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Because there was evidence that resident was not hospital's agent in first place, fact that "loaned servant" doctrine does not eliminate agency relationship between hospital and employee who assists physician in surgery did not give plaintiff grounds for directed verdict. Shepard v. Sisters of Providence, 102 Or App 196, 793 P2d 1384 (1990)

Completed Citations

State Forester v. Umpqua R. Nav. Co., 258 Or 10, 478 P2d 631 (1970), cert. denied, 404 US 826 (1971)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Liability of members of the State Water Resources Board for damages of party adversely affected by reclassification, (1972) Vol 36, p 250; faculty members scope of employment, (1975) Vol 37, p 911; state liability for negligent operation by drivers of state-owned vehicles in authorized car pool, (1978) Vol 39, p 101; State Accident Insurance Fund Corporation as public body, (1980) Vol 40, p 344; Use of Liability Fund balances to pay cost of claims for which date of loss precedes authorized implementation date of state self-insurance program, (1981) Vol 41, p 329; Department of Veterans Affairs fee appraisers and inspectors as agents of state for purposes of tort liability, (1981) Vol 42, p 103; CPAs and PAs volunteering services to investigate and review complaints against accountancy licensees as employes or agents of public body, (1983) Vol 43, p 145; Cause of action under Oregon Tort Claims Act for declarative or injunctive relief or for violation of federal statute,

(1985) Vol. 44, p 416; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool, board, members, employes and agents immune from tort claims, (1989) Vol 46, p 155; director and other state employes are covered by Oregon Tort Claims Act, (1989) Vol 46, p 155; various persons have immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed in carrying out pool programs, (1989) Vol 46, p 155

Law Review Citations

53 OLR 371 (1974); 23 WLR 493, 507 (1987); 69 OLR 157 (1990); 38 WLR 657 (2002); 50 WLR 619 (2014)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021