Attorney, POS Director - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

• These common law and statutory indications that the potential for municipal liability is quite limited should be tempered by a recognition that tort law in Oregon has become very volatile under the tutelage of Justice Linde. In Miller v. Grants Pass Irrigation, 297 Or 312, 686 P2d 324 (1984), an irrigation district was held potentially liable for failing to consider safety regulations of boating upriver from a dam. In applying the discretionary immunity standard of ORS 30.265(3)(c), the court held that if there is a legal duty to protect the public by warning of a danger or by taking preventative measures, the public body may be liable when it decides not to warn or take preventive measures: "(T)he choice of means may be discretionary, but the decision whether or not to do so at all is, by definition, not discretionary." Id., 297 Or at 320. Conversely, a public body is not liable for injury if it fails to exercise discretion when it has no legal duty either to warn of the danger or to prevent it. Id., 297 Or at 32. In a very important series of decisions following Miller, the Oregon Supreme Court effectively jettisoned the entire notion of legal duty on which Miller was, in part,. predicated. In Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 734 P2d 1326 (1987), Kimbler v. Stillwell, 303 Or 23, 734 P2d 1344 (1987) , and Donaca v. Curry County, 303 Or 30, 734 P2d 1339 (1987) the Oregon Supreme Court adopted and applied a new rule for determining liability in negligence: "In short, unless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant's duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant's conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff. The role of the court is what ordinarily is in cases involving the evaluation of particular situations under broad and imprecise standards: to determine whether upon the facts alleged or the evidence presented no reasonable factfinder could decide one or more elements of liability for one or the other party." Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1J, supra, 303 Or at 17. Fazzolari has the potential to sweep away the whole of the common law of landowner liability, leaving the question of negligence to the jury. The Court of Appeals has, however, balked at this result. In Van Den Bron v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 86 Or App 329 n.l., P2d (1987), the court held that Fazzolari is consistent with the notion that: e however, been considered by Oregon courts.