2017 ORS 656.156¹
Intentional injuries

(1) If injury or death results to a worker from the deliberate intention of the worker to produce such injury or death, neither the worker nor the widow, widower, child or dependent of the worker shall receive any payment whatsoever under this chapter.

(2) If injury or death results to a worker from the deliberate intention of the employer of the worker to produce such injury or death, the worker, the widow, widower, child or dependent of the worker may take under this chapter, and also have cause for action against the employer, as if such statutes had not been passed, for damages over the amount payable under those statutes. [Amended by 1965 c.285 §20]

Notes of Decisions

Absent evidence that worker’s su­i­cide was result of either irresistible impulse or complete lack of understanding of consequences of act, su­i­cide was deliberately intended. Jones v. Cascade Wood Prod., Inc., 21 Or App 86, 533 P2d 1399 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Employer’s ratifica­tion of tortious acts of employee is not employer con­duct intended to injure. Bakker v. Baza’r, Inc., 275 Or 245, 551 P2d 1269 (1976); Hanson v. Versarail Systems, Inc., 175 Or App 92, 28 P3d 626 (2001)

Worker’s su­i­cide resulting from work-related stress that produces mental derange­ment impairing ability to resist compulsion to take own life cannot be said to have arisen from “deliberate inten­tion.” McGill v. SAIF, 81 Or App 210, 724 P2d 905 (1986), Sup Ct review denied; Sullivan v. Banister Pipe­line AM, 86 Or App 334, 739 P2d 597 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Chain of Causa­tion Test Requires That

1) worker suffer from work-related psychological condi­tion; 2) condi­tion is or causes mental derange­ment; and 3) worker’s ability to resist tempta­tion to take own life is impaired. Ahn v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 91 Or App 443, 756 P2d 40 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Claimant’s noncompensable su­i­cide does not bar recovery for compensable injuries sustained prior to su­i­cide. Ahn v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 91 Or App 443, 756 P2d 40 (1988), Sup Ct review denied; Carling Na­tional Breweries v. McClure, 164 Or App 209, 991 P2d 578 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

“Deliberate inten­tion” to produce injury requires specific intent to harm, not merely carelessness or gross negligence. Lusk v. Monaco Motor Homes, Inc., 97 Or App 182, 775 P2d 891 (1989); Davis v. United States Employers Council, Inc., 147 Or App 164, 934 P2d 1142 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Showing that injury resulted from deliberate inten­tion of employer requires showing that employer specifically intended to injure some employee, that employer acted on intent and that plaintiff employee was injured as result of employer’s ac­tion. Kilminster v. Day Manage­ment Corp., 323 Or 618, 919 P2d 474 (1996)

Reckless inflic­tion of emo­­tion­al distress claim is not barred, because reckless act can be result of specific intent to produce injury. McMellon v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Or. 1996)

Personal representative of worker may maintain ac­tion based on deliberate intent to cause death of worker regardless of whether beneficiaries of ac­tion qualify to claim workers’ compensa­tion benefits. Behurst v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., 346 Or 29, 203 P3d 207 (2009)

Where plaintiff employee did not allege facts from which factfinder could reasonably infer that employer knew that machinery would continue to malfunc­tion without permanent fix, employee would have to monitor machinery and continue to be exposed to fumes from machinery and fumes would injure employee, employee did not show that employer deliberately intended to injure employee as re­quired to bring claim under this sec­tion. Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC, 277 Or App 785, 373 P3d 1141 (2016), Sup Ct review allowed

Law Review Cita­tions

30 EL 811 (2000)

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 432-445 (1976); 16 WLR 519 (1979); 22 WLR 559 (1986)

Chapter 656

Notes of Decisions

Party having af­firm­a­tive of any issue must prove it by preponderance of evidence unless legislature fixes some different quantum of proof. Hutcheson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 288 Or 51, 602 P2d 268 (1979)

Amend­ments to existing statutes and enact­ment of addi­tional statutes by 1995 legisla­tion generally apply to pending cases and to orders still ap­pealable on June 7, 1995, effective date. Volk v. America West Air­lines, 135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Amend­ments to existing statutes and enact­ment of addi­tional statutes by 1995 legisla­tion do not extend or shorten procedural time limita­tions with regard to ac­tions taken prior to June 7, 1995, effective date. Motel 6 v. McMasters, 135 Or App 583, 899 P2d 1212 (1995)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Benefit unavailability for inmates engaged in prison work programs, (1996) Vol 48, p 134

Law Review Cita­tions

24 WLR 321, 341 (1988); 32 WLR 217 (1996)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 656—Workers’ Compensation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors656.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 656, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano656.­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.