2015 ORS 30.275¹
Notice of claim
  • time of notice
  • time of action

(1) No action arising from any act or omission of a public body or an officer, employee or agent of a public body within the scope of ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive) shall be maintained unless notice of claim is given as required by this section.

(2) Notice of claim shall be given within the following applicable period of time, not including the period, not exceeding 90 days, during which the person injured is unable to give the notice because of the injury or because of minority, incompetency or other incapacity:

(a) For wrongful death, within one year after the alleged loss or injury.

(b) For all other claims, within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury.

(3) Notice of claim required by this section is satisfied by:

(a) Formal notice of claim as provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section;

(b) Actual notice of claim as provided in subsection (6) of this section;

(c) Commencement of an action on the claim by or on behalf of the claimant within the applicable period of time provided in subsection (2) of this section; or

(d) Payment of all or any part of the claim by or on behalf of the public body at any time.

(4) Formal notice of claim is a written communication from a claimant or representative of a claimant containing:

(a) A statement that a claim for damages is or will be asserted against the public body or an officer, employee or agent of the public body;

(b) A description of the time, place and circumstances giving rise to the claim, so far as known to the claimant; and

(c) The name of the claimant and the mailing address to which correspondence concerning the claim may be sent.

(5) Formal notice of claim shall be given by mail or personal delivery:

(a) If the claim is against the state or an officer, employee or agent thereof, to the office of the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.

(b) If the claim is against a local public body or an officer, employee or agent thereof, to the public body at its principal administrative office, to any member of the governing body of the public body, or to an attorney designated by the governing body as its general counsel.

(6) Actual notice of claim is any communication by which any individual to whom notice may be given as provided in subsection (5) of this section or any person responsible for administering tort claims on behalf of the public body acquires actual knowledge of the time, place and circumstances giving rise to the claim, where the communication is such that a reasonable person would conclude that a particular person intends to assert a claim against the public body or an officer, employee or agent of the public body. A person responsible for administering tort claims on behalf of a public body is a person who, acting within the scope of the persons responsibility, as an officer, employee or agent of a public body or as an employee or agent of an insurance carrier insuring the public body for risks within the scope of ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive), engages in investigation, negotiation, adjustment or defense of claims within the scope of ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive), or in furnishing or accepting forms for claimants to provide claim information, or in supervising any of those activities.

(7) In an action arising from any act or omission of a public body or an officer, employee or agent of a public body within the scope of ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive), the plaintiff has the burden of proving that notice of claim was given as required by this section.

(8) The requirement that a notice of claim be given under subsections (1) to (7) of this section does not apply if:

(a)(A) The claimant was under the age of 18 years when the acts or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred;

(B) The claim is against the Department of Human Services or the Oregon Youth Authority; and

(C) The claimant was in the custody of the Department of Human Services pursuant to an order of a juvenile court under ORS 419B.150 (When protective custody authorized), 419B.185 (Evidentiary hearing), 419B.337 (Commitment to custody of Department of Human Services) or 419B.527 (Disposition of ward after termination), or was in the custody of the Oregon Youth Authority under the provisions of ORS 419C.478 (Commitment to Oregon Youth Authority or Department of Human Services), 420.011 (Admissions to youth correction facilities) or 420A.040 (Provision of juvenile corrections programs and services to tribal youth offender), when the acts or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred.

(b) The claim is against a private, nonprofit organization that provides public transportation services described under ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) (4)(d).

(9) Except as provided in ORS 12.120 (Action on escape), 12.135 (Action for damages from construction, alteration or repair of improvement to real property) and 659A.875 (Time limitations), but notwithstanding any other provision of ORS chapter 12 or other statute providing a limitation on the commencement of an action, an action arising from any act or omission of a public body or an officer, employee or agent of a public body within the scope of ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive) shall be commenced within two years after the alleged loss or injury. [1967 c.627 §5; 1969 c.429 §3; 1975 c.604 §1a; 1975 c.609 §14; 1977 c.823 §3; 1979 c.284 §64; 1981 c.350 §1; 1993 c.500 §4; 1993 c.515 §1; 2001 c.601 §1; 2001 c.621 §89; 2005 c.684 §2; 2009 c.67 §18]

Notes of Decisions

It is not necessary that notice under this sec­tion be pleaded in the complaint. Baker v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 20 Or App 277, 531 P2d 716 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Where attorney for state agency files ac­tion against per­son having claim under Oregon Tort Claims Act against agency, serving attorney with counterclaim containing re­quired allega­tions is sufficient to meet notice require­ment. Urban Renewal Agency v. Lackey, 275 Or 35, 549 P2d 657 (1976)

Minors filing of notice was timely under 90-day extension of this sec­tion, notwithstanding she did not allege causal connec­tion between delayed filing and mi­nority status. Pickett v. Washington County, 31 Or App 1263, 572 P2d 1070 (1977)

Ac­tion against public body for wrongful death must be commenced pursuant to this sec­tion and not ORS 30.020 (Action for wrongful death). Housen v. Morse Brothers, 32 Or App 491, 574 P2d 361 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Complaint describing security interest brought 78 days following judicial sale was sufficient notice, and separate allega­tion of timely notice was unnecessary, as complaint filed within 180 days on its face satisfies notice require­ment. Yunker v. Mathews, 32 Or App 551, 574 P2d 696 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Third party complaint in Tort Claims Act ac­tion alleging only that third-party defendant was sole and proximate cause of plaintiffs damages and not alleging any rela­tionship between third party plaintiff and third party defendant or their relative duties, faults or liabilities was insufficient. Page v. Cameron, 33 Or App 441, 576 P2d 837 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Limita­tion period of this sec­tion barred damage ac­tion for death of dormitory resident where ac­tion was based on warranty of habitability theory which incorporated general standard of care. Villalobos v. Univ. of Oregon, 47 Or App 103, 614 P2d 107 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Where plaintiff-landowner brought pro­ceed­ing against county for herb­i­cide spraying which destroyed plaintiffs potato crop, statute of limita­tions in this sec­tion did not begin to run until plaintiff discovered that young potato plants were deformed. Dowers Farms v. Lake County, 288 Or 669, 607 P2d 1361 (1980)

Where Oregon State Police towed plaintiffs car but denied responsibility for towing, 180-day notice period began to run when plaintiff discovered, upon return of vehicle, that Oregon State Police were in fact responsible for injury. Adams v. Oregon State Police, 289 Or 233, 611 P2d 1153 (1980)

Where notice of claim presented on December 22, 1977 alleged that plaintiffs injury or loss resulting from countys failure to maintain its roads occurred from time to time beginning in 1974 and thereafter and ac­tion was brought in January of 1978, continuing tort was alleged and both notice and commence­ment of ac­tion were timely. Holdner v. Columbia County, 51 Or App 605, 627 P2d 4 (1981)

Notice of claim alleging that damage to plaintiffs prop­erty arose from neg­li­gent maintenance of countys roads, was sufficient to advise county of its neg­li­gent maintenance of adjacent ditches. Holdner v. Columbia County, 51 Or App 605, 627 P2d 4 (1981)

Under former version of this sec­tion, presenta­tion by third party defendant of its notice of claim against state agency for contribu­tion and indemnity could not be used by plaintiff to satisfy notice of claim require­ments. Leonard v. State Highway Dept., 52 Or App 923, 630 P2d 85 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Presenta­tion of notice of claim to countys insurance adjuster did not comply with require­ments of this sec­tion. Riddle v. Cain, 54 Or App 474, 635 P2d 392 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Private, nonprofit corpora­tion in business of providing hospital services which employed medical residents through contractual arrange­ment with University of Oregon Health Sciences Center did not thereby become instru­mentality of the state entitled to tort claim notice under this sec­tion. Themins v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Bd., 54 Or App 901, 637 P2d 155 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Time extension for commence­ment for ac­tions provided by ORS 12.160 (Suspension for minors and persons who have disabling mental condition) applies to ac­tions against public bodies. Bradford v. Davis, 290 Or 855, 626 P2d 1376 (1981)

Under former version of this sec­tion, notice of claim pro­vi­sions did not apply to public employes sued in their individual capacity. Bradford v. Davis, 290 Or 855, 626 P2d 1376 (1981)

Where plaintiff brought suit against state employees as private individuals but did not join state as defendant, plaintiff was not re­quired to present notice of claim to state. Smith v. Pernoll, 291 Or 67, 628 P2d 729 (1981); Krieger v. Just, 319 Or 328, 876 P2d 754 (1994)

Where notice of claim re­quired by this sec­tion was actually received by statutorily designated official within proper time period, notice was valid even though sent by first class mail. Brown v. Portland School Dist. No. 1, 291 Or 77, 628 P2d 1183 (1981)

Ac­tion for depriva­tion of civil rights alleging harass­ment by local govern­ment entities was controlled by two-year statute of limita­tions of Tort Claims Act. Kosikowski v. Bourne, 659 F2d 105 (1981)

Where notice of claim re­quired by this sec­tion was actually received by the proper official, notice was valid even though the letter used technically improper form of address. Webb v. Highway Division, 293 Or 645, 652 P2d 783 (1982)

Letter informing defendant that investiga­tion was underway and requesting medical reports setting forth physicians findings, diagnosis, prognosis and causa­tion of plaintiffs resulting condi­tion failed to identify any claim or intent to make claim by plaintiff against defendant and therefore failed to fulfill notice require­ments of this sec­tion. Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or App 794, 669 P2d 1169 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Under version of this statute in effect at time plaintiffs cause of ac­tion arose in January, 1979, and procedural rules then in effect but since repealed, plaintiffs notice of intent to file claim under this sec­tion was deemed to be made on day deposited in post office and complied with 180-day time limita­tion. Shervey v. Clackamas County, 66 Or App 886, 675 P2d 1124 (1984)

Require­ment that claimant shall cause [notice] to be presented to public body within 180 days requires that public body receive notice within 180 days. McDonald v. CSD, 71 Or App 751, 694 P2d 569 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

This sec­tion does not violate equal protec­tion by differentiating between govern­mental and private parties in statute of limita­tions. Nored v. Blehm, 743 F2d 1386 (1984)

Contribu­tion claim notice by defendant pursuant to [former] ORS 18.440 is insufficient to make state liable in tort to claimant. 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

Plaintiffs did not waive right to replead and allege diligence in trying to discover cause of injury where trial court judg­ment was based solely on ground that notice of claim had not been timely rather than that plaintiffs had failed to plead diligence. Siegfried v. Pete Wilson Realty, 79 Or App 670, 720 P2d 392 (1986)

Dismissal of civil rights ac­tion for wrongful arrest was proper where both general tort statute and Oregon Tort Claims Act statute provide for two-year limita­tions period, though limita­tion of general tort statute should have been applied. Davis v. Harvey, 789 F2d 1332 (1986)

Where mi­nor child, allegedly injured by negligence of public body, had not yet filed negligence claim but sought declaratory relief to determine whether potential tort claim was time-barred or whether mi­nors disability pursuant to ORS 12.160 (Suspension for minors and persons who have disabling mental condition) suspended Statute of Limita­tions, complaint seeking declaratory relief did not present justiciable controversy. Lawson v. Coos Co. Sch. Dist. No. 13, 81 Or App 358, 724 P2d 943 (1986)

Filing of claim in Tax Court is not commence­ment of an ac­tion on the claim within meaning of this sec­tion. Sanok v. Grimes, 88 Or App 536, 746 P2d 725 (1987), affd on other grounds, 306 Or 259, 760 P2d 228 (1988)

Accrual, under this sec­tion, of ac­tion on negligence theory for damage to plaintiffs crops caused by failure of timely wa­ter delivery by defendant irriga­tion district occurred with knowledge by plaintiffs of facts giving rise to claim and did not await awareness by plaintiffs of negligence on part of defendant. Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irriga­tion Dist., 304 Or 151, 742 P2d 1176 (1987)

Plaintiffs status as mi­nor did not, by opera­tion of ORS 12.160 (Suspension for minors and persons who have disabling mental condition), toll two-year time limit for commencing ac­tion. Lawson v. Coos Co. Sch. Dist. #13, 94 Or App 387, 765 P2d 829 (1988)

Advance pay­ment would not, by opera­tion of ORS 12.155 (Effect of notice of advance payment on running of period of limitation), toll two-year time limit for commencing ac­tion. Lawson v. Coos Co. Sch. Dist. #13, 94 Or App 387, 765 P2d 829 (1988)

Notice require­ments of Oregon Torts Claims Act do not apply to claims based on federal claim. Sanok v. Grimes, 306 Or 259, 760 P2d 228 (1988)

Statutory objective of this sec­tion is to limit liability of public bodies and their of­fi­cers, employees and agents. Giese v. Bay Area Health District, 101 Or App 410, 790 P2d 1198 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Under former ORS 133.739 (Civil damages for willful interception, disclosure or use of communications) injury occurs when communica­tion is intercepted and two-year period runs from that date. Gill v. City of Eugene, 103 Or App 381, 797 P2d 399 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Limita­tion of ac­tions for professional malpractice under ORS 12.110 (Actions for certain injuries to person not arising on contract) did not bar ac­tion. OBrien v. State of Oregon, 104 Or App 1, 799 P2d 171 (1990)

Where differential treat­ment is inherent in any statutory scheme which continues partial sovereign immunity and Oregon Constitu­tion permits sovereign immunity, challenged statutory scheme which extends three-year statute of limita­tions to most wrongful death ac­tions but only provides two-year statute of limita­tions when wrongful death was govern­ment-inflicted does not violate Article I, Sec­tion 20 of the Oregon Constitu­tion. Van Wormer v. City of Salem, 309 Or 404, 788 P2d 443 (1990)

Where there was genuine issue of ma­te­ri­al fact as to when plaintiff discovered injury that resulted in daughters death, summary judg­ment on ground that plaintiff had failed to give timely notice of tort claim was improper because one-year notice period begins to run from date of discovery of injury rather than from date of death. Stephens v. Bohlman, 107 Or App 533, 813 P2d 43 (1991), affd 314 Or 344, 838 P2d 600 (1992)

Letter from plaintiffs counsel to Superintendent of State Police describing situa­tion as gender based discrimina­tion describes both per­sonnel matter and tort and provides actual notice. McCabe v. State of Oregon, 108 Or App 672, 816 P2d 1192 (1991), affd on other grounds, 314 Or 605, 841 P2d 635 (1992)

Whether Superintendent of State Police has re­quired authority to respond to notice as tort claim is ques­tion of fact. McCabe v. State of Oregon, 108 Or App 672, 816 P2d 1192 (1991), affd on other grounds, 314 Or 605, 841 P2d 635 (1992)

Statute of limita­tions began running when plaintiff learned of injury, cause of injury and identity of tortfeasor, although plaintiff did not not understand full extent of injury and believed sec­ond surgery could cure condi­tion. Raethke v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 115 Or App 195, 837 P2d 977 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Notice of claim against public body must actually be received within stated period to be timely. Tyree v. Tyree, 116 Or App 317, 840 P2d 1378 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Where Oregon State Police superintendent investigates claims involving agency, superintendent qualifies as per­son responsible for administering claims and Actual Notice of Claim received by superintendent satisfies notice require­ments of Tort Claims Act. McCabe v. State of Oregon, 314 Or 605, 841 P2d 635 (1992)

Notice period for claim by mi­nor child against public body is not tolled pending appoint­ment of guardian ad litem. Perez v. Bay Area Hospital, 315 Or 474, 846 P2d 405 (1993); Cooksey v. Portland Public School District No. 1, 143 Or App 527, 923 P2d 1328 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Notice period commenced when plaintiff was able to deduce false report must have been made by individual connected with defendant hospital since on that date plaintiff had all facts necessary to commence ac­tion against hospital. Perez v. Bay Area Hospital, 315 Or 474, 846 P2d 405 (1993)

Where ac­tion is filed under federal Emergency Medical Treat­ment and Active Labor Act, states one-year notice require­ment is not preempted. Draper v. Chiapuzio, 9 F3d 1391 (9th Cir. 1993)

Injury occurs at time legally protected interest is invaded. Cooksey v. Portland Public School District No. 1, 143 Or App 527, 923 P2d 1328 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Actual notice to member of staff of attorney representing public body is not actual notice to attorney. Orr v. City of Eugene, 151 Or App 541, 950 P2d 397 (1997)

Two-year statute of limita­tions does not apply to ac­tion based on public employer con­duct prohibited by whistleblower law ([former] ORS 659.510). Draper v. Astoria School District No. 1C, 995 F. Supp. 1122 (D. Or. 1998)

Giving of tort claim notice does not necessarily mean that claim has accrued for purposes of commencing statute of limita­tions period. Uruo v. Clackamas County, 166 Or App 133, 997 P2d 269 (2000)

Notice communicating time, place and circumstances giving rise to claim does not need to specify nature or theory of claim. Flug v. University of Oregon, 335 Or 540, 73 P3d 917 (2003)

ORS 12.020 (When action deemed begun), providing that ac­tion commences upon filing if summons is served within 60 days following, applies to claims under Oregon Tort Claims Act. Baker v. City of Lakeside, 343 Or 70, 164 P3d 259 (2007)

For purposes of discovery rule, circumstances presenting mere possibility that inquiry would uncover tortious con­duct of third party do not create duty to inquire. Johnson v. Multnomah County Depart­ment of Community Justice, 344 Or 111, 178 P3d 210 (2008)

Notice period for claim by mi­nor child against public body is tolled for as long as mi­nor is under 18 years of age. Funez v. Guzman, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (D. Or. 2009)

Notice of claim by mi­nor must be given within 270 days of discovery of alleged injuries, and ORS 12.160 (Suspension for minors and persons who have disabling mental condition) does not toll this notice period. Catt v. Dept. of Human Services, 251 Or App 488, 284 P3d 532 (2012)

For purpose of determining whether notice is satisfied, [p]ay­ment of all or any part of the claim includes pay­ment of all or part of specific claim or claims ultimately asserted against public body. Hughes v. City of Portland, 255 Or App 271, 296 P3d 642 (2013)

to Determine Limita­tion On Commence­ment of Ac­tion for Battery, Injury Occurs When Plaintiff Knows or Should Have Known of Existence of Three Ele­ments

(1) harm; (2) causa­tion; and (3) tortious con­duct. Doe v. Lake Oswego School District, 353 Or 321, 297 P3d 1287 (2013)

Plaintiff, who filed complaint but did not serve summons on defendants within 180 days of alleged injury, but served summons within 60 days after filing, commenced ac­tion on date of filing. Cannon v. Dept. of Justice, 261 Or App 680, 322 P3d 601 (2014)

Notwithstanding pro­vi­sion of this sec­tion does not bar applica­tion of ORS 12.160 (Suspension for minors and persons who have disabling mental condition) (2005) to plaintiffs claim under Oregon Tort Claims Act even where claim is against public body. Smith v. OHSU Hospital and Clinic, 272 Or App 473, 356 P3d 142 (2015)

Notes of Decisions

Dismissal of ac­tion for per­sonal injuries was improper where based solely upon allega­tions of complaint and allega­tions did not state sufficient facts for court to determine whether particular govern­mental act was discre­tionary func­tion or duty. Hulen v. City of Hermiston, 30 Or App 1141, 569 P2d 665 (1977)

Where plaintiff was mis­takenly arrested following computer retrieval of identifying and locator data for individual of similar name, demurrer as to three of defendants was properly sustained because plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts from which duty to plaintiff could be discerned, and summary judg­ment as to two of defendants was improperly allowed because affidavits did not reveal whether defendants acts were discre­tionary or ministerial. Murphy v. City of Portland, 36 Or App 745, 585 P2d 732 (1978)

Complaint allega­tion that plaintiff submitted applica­tion for building permit in proper form was sufficient to allow pros­e­cu­­tion of claim against public of­fi­cer. Dykeman v. State, 39 Or App 629, 593 P2d 1183 (1979)

Even if Childrens Services Divisions failure to follow re­quired APA rulemaking pro­ce­dures could constitute tort within meaning of these sec­tions, CSD was immune from tort liability under ORS 30.265 (Scope of liability of public body, officers, employees and agents) (3)(f) where it terminated its benefit program without prior rulemaking pro­ce­dures. Burke v. Childrens Services Division, 288 Or 533, 607 P2d 141 (1980)

Ac­tions brought under 42 U.S.C. 1981 are subject to two-year statute of limita­tions of Tort Claims Act. Loiseau v. Dept. of Human Resources, 558 F Supp 521 (1983)

Where police of­fi­cer pursued plaintiff in marked police car with lights and siren activated in area defendant was assigned to patrol, with no known motive other than to fulfill duty as police of­fi­cer, trial court was correct in concluding that defendant was acting in course and scope of employ­ment, despite plaintiffs claim that defendants acts were excessive. Brungardt v. Barton, 69 Or App 440, 685 P2d 1021 (1984)

Plaintiff in 42 U.S.C. 1983 ac­tion brought under the Oregon Tort Claims Act against municipality for ac­tions of its employes need not show that employes acted according to custom or usage as in federal §1983 ac­tion. Haase v. City of Eugene, 85 Or App 107, 735 P2d 1258 (1987)

Limita­tions of Oregon Tort Claims Act do not apply to claims brought in state court alleging viola­tion of federal Civil Rights Act. Rogers v. Saylor, 306 Or 267, 760 P2d 232 (1988)

Mayor was immune from liability in tort claim under this sec­tion where former chief of police brought tort ac­tion in connec­tion with her removal from office. Harrington v. City of Portland, 708 F Supp 1561 (D. Or. 1988)

Where plaintiffs brought ac­tion under 42 U.S.C 1983 and this sec­tion after defendant Childrens Services Division employees removed plaintiffs child from home following reports of abuse, defendants are entitled to absolute immunity under this sec­tion for their discre­tionary acts as provided by ORS 30.265 (Scope of liability of public body, officers, employees and agents) (3). Tennyson v. Childrens Services Division, 308 Or 80, 775 P2d 1365 (1989)

There is no legislative purpose to extend defini­tion of agent to control to include ostensible agent when doctrine of apparent authority is intended to achieve different purpose. Giese v. Bay Area Health District, 101 Or App 410, 790 P2d 1198 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Because there was evidence that resident was not hospitals agent in first place, fact that loaned servant doctrine does not eliminate agency rela­tionship between hospital and employee who assists physician in surgery did not give plaintiff grounds for di­rected verdict. Shepard v. Sisters of Providence, 102 Or App 196, 793 P2d 1384 (1990)

Completed Cita­tions

State Forester v. Umpqua R. Nav. Co., 258 Or 10, 478 P2d 631 (1970), cert. denied, 404 US 826 (1971)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Liability of members of the State Water Resources Board for damages of party adversely affected by reclassifica­tion, (1972) Vol 36, p 250; faculty members scope of employ­ment, (1975) Vol 37, p 911; state liability for neg­li­gent opera­tion by drivers of state-owned vehicles in authorized car pool, (1978) Vol 39, p 101; State Accident Insurance Fund Corpora­tion as public body, (1980) Vol 40, p 344; Use of Liability Fund balances to pay cost of claims for which date of loss precedes authorized imple­menta­tion date of state self-insurance program, (1981) Vol 41, p 329; Depart­ment of Veterans Affairs fee appraisers and inspectors as agents of state for purposes of tort liability, (1981) Vol 42, p 103; CPAs and PAs volunteering services to investigate and review complaints against accountancy licensees as employes or agents of public body, (1983) Vol 43, p 145; Cause of ac­tion under Oregon Tort Claims Act for declarative or injunctive relief or for viola­tion of federal statute,

(1985) Vol. 44, p 416; Oregon Medical Insurance Pool, board, members, employes and agents immune from tort claims, (1989) Vol 46, p 155; director and other state employes are covered by Oregon Tort Claims Act, (1989) Vol 46, p 155; various per­sons have immunity from pros­e­cu­­tion for crim­i­nal acts committed in carrying out pool programs, (1989) Vol 46, p 155

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 371 (1974); 23 WLR 493, 507 (1987); 69 OLR 157 (1990); 38 WLR 657 (2002); 50 WLR 619 (2014)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 30—Actions and Suits in Particular Cases, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors030.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 30, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano030.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.