New Search
• <br /> CITY ATTORNEY — CIVIL DEPARTMENT <br /> GENERAL PRINCIPLES <br /> Before addressing your specific concern, we want to review <br /> briefly the status of general tort and negligence law in the State <br /> of Oregon. As you are aware, earlier this year the Oregon Supreme <br /> Court endeavored to articulate standards of evaluating claims for <br /> negligence in Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1J, 303 Or <br /> 1 (1987); Donaca v. Curry County, 303 Or 30 (1987). In these <br /> cases the Court indicated proper analysis in negligence law would <br /> no longer deal in conclusionary terms of "duty ", but rather make a <br /> determination of "whether defendant's conduct caused a foreseeable <br /> kind of harm to an interest protected against that kind of <br /> negligent invasion and whether the conduct creating the risk of <br /> that kind of harm was unreasonable under the circumstances." (Id. <br /> at 38). The Donaca case dealt with a county's duty to remove site • <br /> obscuring vegetation in an intersection. The Court recited the <br /> County's general responsibility to provide safe public roads and <br /> to protect the traveling public. <br /> Therefore, the threshold analysis to the questions you raise <br /> is whether the City's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable <br /> kind of harm. (Fazzolari, supra, 303 Or at 17). The Court has <br /> indicated that this is a general assessment of the types of <br /> incidents and injury that could occur, not a question of the <br /> predictability of a particular set of sequence that ended in <br /> injury. (Id. at 13). Further, it requires an assessment of all <br /> foreseeable risks of harm to any class of persons, not just the <br /> 2 <br />