2017 ORS 30.270¹
(Title not available: statute has been repealed or renumbered.)

[1967 c.627 §4; 1969 c.429 §2; 1975 c.609 §13; 1987 c.705 §8; 1987 c.915 §13; repealed by 2009 c.67 §20]

Note

Repealed as of July 1, 2009

Notes of Decisions

Personal representative of decedent’s estate who prosecutes claim under Oregon Tort Claims Act for wrongful death acts only as nominal party and is not single “claimant” subject to $100,000 limita­tion on damages. Christensen v. Epley, 287 Or 539, 601 P2d 1216 (1979)

Right to assert dollar limita­tion on tort liability under this sec­tion was not waived by govern­mental defendant who failed to assert it before judg­ment. Espinosa v. Southern Pacific Transporta­tion, 50 Or App 561, 624 P2d 162 (1981), aff’d 291 Or 853, 635 P2d 638 (1981)

Limita­tion on amount of liability under this sec­tion is not waived by govern­mental defendant purchasing liability insurance in excess of dollar limita­tion. Espinosa v. Southern Pacific Transporta­tion, 291 Or 853, 635 P2d 638 (1981); Southern Pacific Transporta­tion v. School District No. 40, 291 Or 867, 635 P2d 645 (1981)

Since if decedent leaves heirs, per­sonal representative of estate has no authority to maintain ac­tion for wrongful death against tortfeasor, per­sonal representative on behalf of estate does not become independent claimant for purpose of recovery of damages. Mendez v. State of Oregon, 64 Or App 581, 669 P2d 364 (1983)

$100,000 public-body damage limita­tion does not violate Article IV, sec­tion 24, Oregon Constitu­tion. Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 783 P2d 506 (1989)

This sec­tion does not violate Article I, sec­tion 10 of the Oregon Constitu­tion because it does not deprive plaintiff of any preexisting remedy against Port of Portland and although it alters plaintiff’s remedy against City of Portland, plaintiff is still left with substantial remedy. Hale v. Port of Portland, 308 Or 508, 783 P2d 506 (1989)

Plaintiff’s settle­ment with joint tortfeasor does not extinguish claim against public body or public employees whose liability is limited unless settle­ment equals or exceeds actual damages suffered by plaintiff. Dee v. Pomeroy, 109 Or App 114, 818 P2d 523 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Pecuniary loss based on estimated net future earnings of decedent is analogous to claim for impaired future earning capacity under [former] ORS 18.560 and therefore is special damage. Neher v. Chartier, 142 Or App 534, 923 P2d 653 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Limita­tion on “total award of special damages” is limita­tion on special damages awarded to individual claimant, not limita­tion on aggregate amount awarded to all claimants. Neher v. Chartier, 142 Or App 534, 923 P2d 653 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Because recovery of damages against govern­ment is limited by statute, injured party is not “legally entitled to recover” excess damages through insurance providing uninsured motorist coverage re­quired by ORS 742.504 (Required provisions of uninsured motorist coverage). Surface v. American Spirit Insurance Cos., 154 Or App 696, 962 P2d 717 (1998), aff’d 335 Or 356, 67 P3d 938 (2003)

Prohibi­tion on imposing punitive damages against public body overrides availability of punitive damages under [former] ORS 659.121 in unlawful employ­ment practice ac­tions. Faro v. Highway Division, 326 Or 317, 951 P2d 716 (1998)

Attorney fees are not subject to limita­tion imposed on liability for general and special damages. Anglin v. Dept. of Correc­tions, 160 Or App 463, 982 P2d 547 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Where multiple tortfeasors are involved, max­i­mum limit on liability of public body for general and special damages is applied only to amount determined to be public body’s share of total general and special damages awarded. Tenbusch v. Linn County, 172 Or App 172, 18 P3d 419 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Limita­tion on liability for “claims for damage to or destruc­tion of prop­erty” does not apply to inverse condemna­tion claim. Vokoun v. City of Lake Oswego, 189 Or App 499, 76 P3d 677 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Where two claimants hold damaged or destroyed prop­erty as tenancy by entireties, each claimant is entitled to one-half of judg­ment amount, with amount awarded to each claimant being separately subject to statutory limit on liability for prop­erty damage or destruc­tion. McCormick v. City of Portland, 191 Or App 383, 82 P3d 1043 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

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)

Damages for loss of services and loss of support may be claimed by multiple beneficiaries who may each recover up to statutory limita­tions on damages. Miller v. Tri-Met, 241 Or App 86, 250 P3d 27 (2011), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Indemnifica­tion when there is a judg­ment in excess of limita­tions, (1975) Vol 37, p 911; in pari materiaconstruc­tion of ORS 30.285 (Public body shall indemnify public officers), with this sec­tion, (1977) Vol 38, p 1565

Law Review Cita­tions

69 OLR 153 (1990); 31 WLR 179 (1995)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 30—Actions and Suits in Particular Cases, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors030.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 30, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano030.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
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.