Right of contribution among joint tortfeasors
- limitations
- subrogation of insurer
- effect on indemnity right
Source:
Section 31.800 — Right of contribution among joint tortfeasors; limitations; subrogation of insurer; effect on indemnity right, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors031.html.
Notes of Decisions
Statute granting the right of contribution among joint tortfeasors is not retroactive and therefore no joint tortfeasor has a right to contribution unless the tort for which contribution is sought was committed on or after the effective date of the statute. Coos-Curry Elec. v. Curry County, 26 Or App 645, 554 P2d 601 (1976)
In contribution suit, third party defendant is liable to original defendant-third party plaintiff for portion of total liability only if original plaintiff could have recovered against third party defendant. Miller v. City of Portland, 288 Or 271, 604 P2d 1261 (1980)
Where party had been found not liable to original plaintiff by virtue of summary judgment in separate lawsuit, there was no cause of action for contribution under this section. Blackledge v. Harrington, 291 Or 691, 634 P2d 243 (1981)
Tortfeasor who settles plaintiff’s claims against all tortfeasors is not barred from recovering contribution on theory that resulting dismissal constitutes judgment that tortfeasors who did not participate in settlement are “not liable in tort to the claimant.” Transport Indemnity Co. v. BB and S, Inc., 63 Or App 392, 664 P2d 1115 (1983), Sup Ct review denied
State is “person” for purposes of paying or recovering contribution. Beaver v. Pelett, 299 Or 664, 705 P2d 1149 (1985)
Contribution claim notice by defendant is insufficient to make state liable in tort to claimant under ORS 30.275. Beaver v. Pelett, 299 Or 664, 705 P2d 1149 (1985); Mitchell v. Sherwood, 161 Or App 376, 985 P2d 870 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
State’s third-party contribution claim against plaintiff’s attorney in earlier action, alleging that he was negligent in failing to “monitor” entry of order in that action and that his negligence contributed to damages sustained by plaintiff was wrongly dismissed and was not subject to defense of “no duty,” even if ORCP 63E directs court clerk to send attorney notice of entry of order. Simpson v. State of Oregon, 94 Or App 15, 764 P2d 580 (1988)
Where insurance company sought contribution under this section based on allegation that Oregon Health Sciences University and state were responsible for obligation insurance company discharged, but only partially, as subrogee of resident doctor and hospital at which malpractice allegedly occurred, insurance company’s allegations do not establish right to contribution as matter of law. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. OHSU, 310 Or 61, 793 P2d 320 (1990)
Where claim settled without trial, contribution plaintiff was not required to prove damage and liability details of underlying suit to recover from contribution defendant. Jensen v. Alley, 128 Or App 673, 877 P2d 108 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date