2007 ORS 12.115¹
Action for negligent injury to person or property

(1) In no event shall any action for negligent injury to person or property of another be commenced more than 10 years from the date of the act or omission complained of.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to extend any period of limitation otherwise established by law, including but not limited to the limitations established by ORS 12.110 (Actions for certain injuries to person not arising on contract). [1967 c.406 §2]

Notes of Decisions

This statute covers products liability cases as well as those of negligence. Johnson v. Star Machinery Co., 270 Or 694, 530 P2d 53 (1974)

Where tractor driver filed products liability ac­tion against manufacturer more than ten years following manufacture and sale of tractor, ac­tion was barred by this sec­tion. Cavan v. General Motors, 280 Or 455, 571 P2d 1249 (1977)

This sec­tion, a statute of ultimate repose for neg­li­gent injuries, was not tolled by plaintiff's insanity under ORS 12.160 (Suspension for minors and persons who are insane). DeLay v. Marathon LeTourneau Sales Co., 291 Or 310, 630 P2d 836 (1981)

Subsec­tion (1), statute of ultimate repose, applies to suit based on alleged legal malpractice. Withers v. Milbank, 67 Or App 475, 678 P2d 770 (1984); Davis v. Somers, 140 Or App 567, 915 P2d 1047 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Plain language of this sec­tion indicates that it is not subject to ORS 12.155 (Effect of notice of advance payment on running of period of limitation). Davis v. Blanchard, 84 Or App 99, 733 P2d 460 (1987)

Where alleged failure to warn or instruct re­gard­ing product occurs after time of purchase, claim for damages is subject to this sec­tion instead of ORS 30.905 (Time limitation for commencement of action) limita­tion period for product liability claims. Erickson Air-Crane v. United Tech. Corp., 303 Or 281, 735 P2d 614 (1987), as modified by 303 Or 452, 736 P2d 1023 (1987)

Equitable estoppel is not available to avoid time limita­tion of this sec­tion because to hold otherwise would thwart legislature's intent to provide absolute cutoff date for bringing ac­tions to which statute applies. Beals v. Breeden Bros., Inc., 113 Or App 566, 833 P2d 348 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Discovery rule of federal Superfund Amend­ments and Reauthoriza­tion Act preempts state statute of repose with regard to state law ac­tion based on release of hazardous substances. Buggsi, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 857 F Supp 1427 (D. Or. 1994)

Law Review Cita­tions

52 OLR 91-104 (1972); 54 OLR 480 (1975)

Chapter 12

Notes of Decisions

An ac­tion for per­sonal injuries caused by breach of implied warranty is clearly one for which "different limita­tion is prescribed by statute" under ORS 12.010 (Time of commencing actions) and thus is not governed by pro­vi­sions of this chapter. Redfield v. Mead, Johnson & Co., 266 Or 273, 512 P2d 776 (1973)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 12—Limitations of Actions and Suits, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­012.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 12, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­012ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.