ORS Chapter 31 Explained

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, we are not your attorneys. To hire an attorney and get legal advice please get in touch with us for a free consultation.

Chapter 31 of the Oregon Revised Statutes dives into the legal realm of tort law, specifically focusing on non-economic damages and situations where those damages might be limited or even barred.

It covers scenarios like:

Driving without insurance or under the influence: Generally, non-economic damages like pain and suffering can't be recovered if you were breaking these laws during an accident.
Exceptions: This limitation doesn't apply if the other driver was also at fault, you had recent car insurance, or the accident involved reckless driving or a felony.
Criminal charges: If you face DUI charges, the lawsuit might be put on hold until the criminal case is settled.
Bottom line: This chapter aims to encourage safe driving and responsible behavior by limiting compensation for certain choices. Remember, everyone deserves a safe road

It's important to note that this is a simplified summary for general understanding. For specific legal advice, always consult with a qualified attorney. Call for a free consultation!

ORS Chapter 31 - Tort Actions - 2021 Edition

This page is part of an ongoing project to help the general community better understand personal injury law. The explanations provided are regarding the 2021 version of the Oregon Revised Statues.

Remember: These are simplified explanations and don't cover all the legal nuances of ORS Chapter 31. If you have a specific legal question, please request a consult.

SPECIAL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

31.150 - Special motion to strike; when available; burden of proof

Oregon Revised Statute 31.150 deals with a legal procedure for defendants in Oregon to quickly get certain claims dismissed based on free speech and petition rights.

Key Points

This is a quick and early way to dismiss claims based on free speech and petition rights.
The burden of proof is initially on the defendant, then shifts to the plaintiff.
Evidence is submitted through affidavits (written statements), not a full trial.
A ruling on the motion doesn't affect the main case, except for the specific claim that was struck.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute. If you have a specific legal question or situation related to ORS 31.200 call for a free personal injury consultation.

ORS 31.150 Explained

31.152 Time for filing special motion to strike; discovery; attorney fees

Oregon Revised Statute 31.152 deals with a legal procedure called a "special motion to strike" in tort cases, which are civil lawsuits seeking compensation for harm caused by someone else's actions. This specific statute focuses on three main aspects:

Timing: The motion must be filed within 60 days of receiving the lawsuit (complaint) or at a later time allowed by the court's discretion.
Discovery pause: Once the motion is filed, all discovery activities in the case are put on hold until the court makes a decision. Discovery involves gathering evidence from both parties to prepare for trial.
Attorney fees: The winning party, whether the plaintiff (person who filed the lawsuit) or the defendant (person being sued), may be awarded attorney fees depending on the outcome of the motion.

ORS 31.152 Explained

31.155 Exempt actions; substantive law not affected

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 31.155 is like a legal exception clause for two other related laws, ORS 31.150 and 31.152. These two laws created a special procedure for throwing out certain types of lawsuits early in the court process, but ORS 31.155 says this procedure doesn't apply to everyone.

Who doesn't have to follow the special procedure?

Government officials: If the lawsuit is filed by someone like the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney acting in their official role, they can skip the special procedure and proceed with their case normally.
The law itself: ORS 31.150 and 31.152 only affect the procedure for certain lawsuits, not the actual laws themselves. So, even if the special procedure doesn't apply, the underlying legal issues in the lawsuit are still valid.

What does this mean for regular people?

If you're not a government official and you're being sued in a case that might fall under ORS 31.150 and 31.155, this exception doesn't automatically mean you win. It just means the other party can't use the special procedure to get your case thrown out early. You'll still need to defend yourself in court based on the specific facts and laws of your case.

ORS 31.155 Explained

DEFENSES GENERALLY

31.180 Certain felonious conduct of plaintiff complete defense in tort actions; proof; exceptions

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 31.180 is like a legal "get out of jail free card" for defendants in certain tort cases, which are civil lawsuits for harm caused by someone else.

If the plaintiff (person suing) was involved in a serious crime related to the lawsuit, the defendant (person being sued) can use this law to completely block the lawsuit. This means the plaintiff can't win any money or get any other remedy from the court.

What kind of crimes are we talking about?

ORS 31.180 applies to specific felonies, which are serious crimes punishable by more than a year in prison. These include things like assault, robbery, theft, and drug trafficking. However, it's important to note that the crime itself doesn't automatically trigger this defense. The crime has to be connected to the lawsuit in a specific way.

Exceptions to the rule:

Even if the plaintiff committed a crime, there are a few situations where the defendant can't use ORS 31.180:

Self-defense: If the plaintiff committed a crime in self-defense, they can still sue.
Duress: If the plaintiff was forced to commit a crime, they can still sue.
Entrapment: If the defendant tricked or pressured the plaintiff into committing a crime, they can still sue.

RULES GOVERNING PARTICULAR CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

(Defamation)

31.200 Liability of radio or television station personnel for defamation

ORS 31.200 limits the liability of broadcasters and publishers (radio stations, TV channels, etc.) for defamatory statements made by others on their airwaves.

Key Points:

If someone says something defamatory about you on a radio or TV show, you can't automatically sue the station or channel.
You need to prove that they were negligent, meaning they didn't take reasonable steps to prevent the defamatory statement from being broadcast.
This law protects broadcasters and publishers from being held responsible for every single thing that's said on their airwaves, as long as they've acted responsibly.

31.205 Damages recoverable for defamation by radio, television, motion pictures, newspaper or printed periodical

ORS 31.205 outlines the specific steps a publisher or broadcaster must take to retract a defamatory statement and potentially mitigate damages in a defamation lawsuit.

Key Points:

If someone sues a publisher or broadcaster for defamation, the defendant (the publisher or broadcaster) can potentially reduce the amount of money they have to pay in damages by publishing a correction or retraction of the defamatory statement.
ORS 31.205 specifies the requirements for this retraction, such as how prominently it must be published and how quickly it must be done after the original statement was made.
This law encourages publishers and broadcasters to correct their mistakes and try to minimize harm, even if they've already published something defamatory.

31.210 When general damages allowed

ORS 31.210 establishes the circumstances under which a plaintiff can recover general damages in a defamation lawsuit, particularly when truth is used as a defense.

Key Points:

General damages in defamation cases typically refer to non-economic harm, such as emotional distress, reputational damage, and loss of social standing.
ORS 31.210 states that even if a defendant proves that a defamatory statement was true, the plaintiff can still potentially recover general damages if they can prove that the defendant acted with actual malice or intent to harm.
This means that even if a statement is true, it can still be considered defamatory if it was made with the goal of hurting someone's reputation.

31.215 Publication of correction or retraction upon demand

ORS 31.215 outlines the specific steps a person must take to demand a correction or retraction of a defamatory statement before they can file a defamation lawsuit.

Key Points:

If someone believes they've been defamed in a publication or broadcast, they can't just immediately rush to court. They first have to give the publisher or broadcaster a chance to fix the situation.
ORS 31.215 lays out the requirements for this demand, such as how it must be made, what information it must include, and how long the publisher or broadcaster has to respond.
This law aims to promote resolution and minimize lawsuits by encouraging communication and correction before legal action is taken.

31.220 Effect of publication of correction or retraction prior to demand

ORS 31.220 establishes specific restrictions on recovering damages in defamation lawsuits for individuals considered public figures in Oregon.

Key Points:

Public figures (like politicians, celebrities, and other well-known individuals) have a harder time winning defamation cases and collecting damages in Oregon compared to private individuals.
ORS 31.220 requires public figures to prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice"—meaning they knew the statement was false or had a reckless disregard for the truth—in order to recover damages.
This law reflects the idea that public figures, due to their status and influence, are expected to face a higher degree of scrutiny and criticism, and the law aims to protect freedom of speech and expression in public discourse.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.225 Publisher’s defenses and privileges not affected

ORS 31.225 establishes specific restrictions on recovering special damages in defamation lawsuits in Oregon.

Key Points:

Special damages in defamation cases refer to specific economic losses that can be directly attributed to the defamatory statement, such as lost wages, lost business opportunities, or medical expenses.
ORS 31.225 outlines the requirements for proving special damages, which are often more difficult to establish than general damages (non-economic harm).
This law aims to ensure that plaintiffs in defamation cases can only recover financial compensation for losses that are directly and concretely linked to the defamatory statement.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

(Wrongful Use of Civil Proceeding)

31.230 Wrongful use of civil proceeding; pleading; procedure

ORS 31.230 establishes a legal claim for "wrongful use of civil proceedings" in Oregon. This claim allows a person to seek damages against someone who has wrongfully initiated a civil proceeding against them.

Some Key Points:

If someone sues you using false or misleading information, or with malicious intent to harass or harm you, you may have a legal claim against them under ORS 31.230.
This claim is separate from the original lawsuit and focuses on the wrongful act of initiating the proceeding itself.
If you win a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings, you may be able to recover damages to compensate you for the expenses and other consequences you suffered as a result of defending against the unfounded lawsuit.
These damages could potentially include punitive damages, which are intended to punish the defendant and deter similar behavior in the future.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

(Actions Against Health Care Providers; Resolution of Adverse Health Care Incidents)

31.250 Mandatory dispute resolution for certain actions against health practitioners and health care facilities

ORS 31.250 mandates a process of mandatory dispute resolution before certain types of lawsuits against healthcare practitioners and healthcare facilities can proceed to trial in Oregon.

Some Key Points:

If you're planning to sue a healthcare practitioner (like a doctor, nurse, or therapist) or a healthcare facility (like a hospital or clinic) for negligence, unauthorized rendering of healthcare, or product liability related to medical devices or drugs, you'll generally have to participate in some form of dispute resolution first.
This could include mediation, arbitration, or a judicial settlement conference.
The goal is to encourage early settlement discussions and potentially resolve disputes without the need for a full-blown trial, saving time, money, and resources for all parties involved.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.260 Definitions for ORS 31.260 to 31.278

ORS 31.260 establishes the "Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident" (NAHI) process in Oregon, aiming to resolve adverse healthcare incidents (injuries or deaths due to medical error) without traditional litigation.

Key Points:

Defines key terms: Adverse healthcare incident, healthcare facility, healthcare provider.
Creates a communication framework: Outlines how patients can notify providers of incidents and how providers should respond.
Encourages resolution: Facilitates discussions about compensation or remedies without lawsuits, often through mediation.
Protects confidentiality: Information shared during NAHI is generally confidential, promoting open communication.
Provides exceptions: Acknowledges that some cases may still require litigation if NAHI resolution isn't possible.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.262 Notice of adverse health care incident

ORS 31.262 outlines the specific process for a patient to file a Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) in Oregon, which is the first step in initiating the NAHI process under ORS 31.260.

Key Points:

Initiating the NAHI process: It's the formal mechanism for a patient to start the NAHI communication and resolution process.
Filing requirements: Specifies how a patient or their representative can submit the notice to the appropriate healthcare provider or facility.
Content of the notice: Outlines the essential information that must be included in the notice, such as the nature of the adverse healthcare incident, the date and location of the incident, and the names of the healthcare providers involved.
Timelines and procedures: Sets forth deadlines for filing the notice and procedures for how healthcare providers should respond to and address the notice.
Confidentiality: Reiterates the confidentiality protections for information shared during the NAHI process, as established in ORS 31.260.

31.264 Discussion of adverse health care incident; offers of compensation; reporting to commission

ORS 31.264 governs the process of discussion and potential resolution that follows the filing of a Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) in Oregon. It focuses on facilitating communication and potential agreements between the patient (or their representative) and the healthcare provider or facility involved in the incident.

Key Points:

Initiates discussion and resolution phase: Once an NAHI is filed, this statute guides the subsequent steps aimed at resolving the issues without litigation.
Requires a discussion between parties: Mandates that the patient or their representative and the healthcare provider or facility engage in a discussion about the incident, potential remedies, and possible compensation.
Promotes mediation: Encourages the use of mediation, a process involving a neutral third party who helps facilitate discussions and reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Sets timelines for resolution: Establishes timeframes within which discussions and mediation efforts should occur.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.266 Discussion communications; admissibility; disclosure

ORS 31.266 addresses the confidentiality of communications and materials exchanged during the Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) process in Oregon. It aims to protect sensitive information and encourage open communication between parties.

Key Points:

Confidentiality of "discussion communications": Protects from disclosure any oral or written communications made during discussions or mediation under ORS 31.264.
Confidentiality of "offers of compensation": Extends protection to offers of compensation made by healthcare providers or facilities during the NAHI process.
Exceptions to confidentiality: Acknowledges specific situations where confidentiality might not apply, such as:
- When disclosure is authorized by all parties involved.
- When required by law or court order.
- When used for reporting to certain regulatory or oversight bodies.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.268 Mediation

ORS 31.268 addresses the process of mediation within the Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) system in Oregon. It outlines how mediation is initiated and conducted to facilitate resolution between parties.

Key Points:

Initiating mediation: Specifies when and how mediation can be triggered during NAHI discussions, likely when initial discussions don't yield a resolution.
Selection of mediator: Outlines the process for choosing a qualified and neutral mediator to oversee the process.
Mediation process: Sets forth guidelines for conducting mediation, including:
- Scheduling mediation sessions.
- Facilitating communication between parties.
- Exploring potential agreements and compromises.
Confidentiality: Reiterates the confidentiality protections for information shared during mediation, as established in ORS 31.266.
Non-binding nature: Emphasizes that mediation is a voluntary process and any agreements reached must be mutually acceptable, not legally binding like a court order.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.270 Payment and resolution

ORS 31.270 addresses the resolution of Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) cases in Oregon, primarily focusing on the payment of compensation to patients who have been harmed and the finalization of agreements.

Key Points:

Payment of compensation: It establishes that a payment made to a patient under the NAHI process is not considered an admission of liability or fault by the healthcare provider or facility. This aims to protect providers from potential legal repercussions beyond the NAHI process.
Settlement agreements: Specifies that a written settlement agreement reached through the NAHI process is binding on both parties and can be enforced in court if necessary. This ensures the enforceability of agreements reached through the NAHI process.
Confidentiality: Reiterates the confidentiality protections for information shared during the NAHI process, including discussions, offers of compensation, and settlement agreements.
Recordkeeping: Likely requires healthcare providers and facilities to maintain records of NAHI cases for a certain period, potentially for regulatory or oversight purposes.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.272 Statute of limitations; evidence of offers and payments

ORS 31.272 addresses the statute of limitations—the time limit for filing a lawsuit—in cases involving adverse healthcare incidents in Oregon, specifically when the Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) process has been initiated.

Key Points:

Tolling of statute of limitations: It pauses or "tolls" the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit during the NAHI process, allowing time for discussion and potential resolution without litigation.
Length of tolling: It specifies the duration of the tolling period, which is typically 180 days from the filing of the NAHI notice. This timeframe can be extended by agreement of the parties.
Renewal of statute of limitations: Once the NAHI process concludes without a resolution, the statute of limitations resumes, giving the patient the option to pursue a lawsuit within the remaining time.
Exceptions: It may acknowledge specific situations where the tolling of the statute of limitations might not apply, such as cases involving fraudulent concealment of information or intentional delay tactics.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.274 Patient representatives

ORS 31.274 addresses the issue of patient representation within the Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) process in Oregon. It outlines who can act as a representative for a patient who is unable to participate directly, ensuring their rights and interests are protected.

Patients who may need representation: Specifies the categories of patients who may require a representative, including:
- Minors (under 18 years of age)
- Deceased individuals
- Patients who are medically incapacitated or otherwise unable to communicate or make decisions on their own behalf
Authorized representatives: Identifies who can act as a representative for these patients, such as:
- Parents or guardians of minors
- Personal representatives or executors of deceased individuals' estates
- Individuals designated by the patient through a power of attorney or other legal document
Duties and powers of representatives: Outlines the responsibilities and authority of representatives, including:
- Filing the NAHI notice on behalf of the patient
- Participating in discussions and mediation
- Making decisions about potential settlements or compensation
- Accessing information related to the adverse healthcare incident
Protection of patient rights: Emphasizes that representatives must act in the best interests of the patient and protect their confidentiality rights.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.276 Duties of Oregon Patient Safety Commission; rules

ORS 31.276 outlines the responsibilities of the Oregon Patient Safety Commission (OPSC) in relation to the Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) process in Oregon. It empowers the commission to establish rules and procedures to ensure the effective implementation of the NAHI system.

Key Points:

Rulemaking authority: Grants the OPSC the power to create rules that govern various aspects of the NAHI process, such as:
- Timelines for filing notices and conducting discussions.
- Qualifications of mediators.
- Procedures for documenting mediation sessions and agreements.
- Recordkeeping requirements for healthcare providers and facilities.
- Training requirements for healthcare professionals involved in the NAHI process.
Ensuring compliance: Tasks the OPSC with monitoring compliance with the NAHI statutes and rules, ensuring that healthcare providers and facilities adhere to the established procedures.
Education and outreach: Empowers the OPSC to conduct educational and outreach activities to inform healthcare professionals and the public about the NAHI process, promoting its understanding and utilization.
Data collection and analysis: Authorizes the OPSC to collect data on NAHI cases and outcomes, which can be used to identify trends, assess the effectiveness of the process, and recommend improvements to the legislature.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.278 Use of information relating to notice of adverse health care incident

ORS 31.278 addresses the utilization of information gathered through the Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) process in Oregon. It outlines how the Oregon Patient Safety Commission (OPSC) can disseminate and use this information to promote patient safety and improve healthcare quality.

Key Points:

Dissemination of information: Authorizes the OPSC to share information from NAHI cases, with certain restrictions, to:
- Facilitate research and analysis aimed at identifying trends and patterns in adverse healthcare incidents.
- Inform the development of patient safety initiatives and best practices.
- Educate healthcare professionals and the public about patient safety issues.
Protection of confidentiality: Emphasizes that any information shared must protect the confidentiality of patients, healthcare providers, and facilities involved in NAHI cases. This means:
- Not disclosing identifying information.
- Using aggregated or de-identified data whenever possible.
- Complying with applicable privacy laws and regulations.
Restrictions on use by regulatory agencies: Prohibits the OPSC from sharing NAHI information with regulatory agencies or licensing boards for disciplinary purposes. This aims to encourage open communication and participation in the NAHI process without fear of retribution.
Task force for resolution: Establishes a task force to review the NAHI process and make recommendations for improvements, potentially using the information gathered through the process.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.280 Task Force on Resolution of Adverse Health Care Incidents; rules

ORS 31.280 establishes a Task Force on Resolution of Adverse Healthcare Incidents (Task Force) in Oregon. It outlines the composition, duties, and reporting requirements of the task force, with a primary goal of reviewing and recommending improvements to the Notice of Adverse Healthcare Incident (NAHI) process.

Key Points:

Composition of the Task Force:
- 14 members appointed by various entities.
- Includes representatives from:
  - Healthcare providers and facilities.
  - Patients and patient advocacy groups.
  - Legal professionals.
  - Insurance industry.
  - Oregon Patient Safety Commission (OPSC).
  - Legislative body.
Duties of the Task Force:
- Review the NAHI process, identifying strengths and weaknesses.
- Analyze data on NAHI cases and outcomes.
- Consider recommendations from the OPSC and other stakeholders.
- Develop recommendations for improvements to the NAHI process, focusing on:
  - Enhancing efficiency and timeliness.
  - Promoting fairness and transparency.
  - Ensuring confidentiality and patient safety.
  - Achieving better resolution outcomes.
Reporting Requirements:
- Submit a report with findings and recommendations to the legislature by a specified deadline.
- The legislature may consider these recommendations for potential legislative action to amend or refine the NAHI process.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

(Actions Against Design Professionals)

31.300 Pleading requirements for actions against design professionals

ORS 31.300 establishes specific pleading requirements for certain actions brought against construction design professionals in Oregon. It aims to ensure that claims against these professionals are well-founded and supported by appropriate evidence, reducing the likelihood of frivolous lawsuits.

Key Points:

Applicable to claims against:
- Architects.
- Landscape architects.
- Professional engineers.
- Professional land surveyors.
Certification requirement:
- Mandates that the claimant's attorney certify that they have consulted a design professional with similar credentials to the defendant.
- This professional must be willing to testify that the defendant's alleged conduct failed to meet the standard of professional skill and care ordinarily provided by others in the same field.
Timing of certification:
- Must be filed with the initial pleading (complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint).
- In certain cases, an affidavit can be filed with the initial pleading, stating that the certification will be provided within 30 days.
Failure to comply:
- If the claimant fails to meet the certification requirements, the court must dismiss the claim upon a motion by the design professional.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

(Actions Against Real Estate Licensees)

31.350 Pleading requirements for actions against real estate licensees

ORS 31.350 establishes specific pleading requirements for actions alleging professional negligence against real estate licensees in Oregon. It aims to ensure that claims against real estate agents and brokers are well-founded and supported by appropriate evidence, potentially reducing frivolous lawsuits.

Key Points:

Applicability: Applicable to claims of professional negligence against real estate licensees.
Certification Requirement: Mandates that the claimant's attorney certify that they have consulted with a real estate licensee who:
- Has expertise in the area of practice related to the alleged negligence.
- Will testify that the defendant's alleged conduct fell below the standard of care expected of real estate licensees in the same field.
Timing of Certification: The certification must be filed with the initial pleading (complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint).
Affidavit Option: In certain cases, an affidavit can be filed with the initial pleading, stating that the certification will be provided within 30 days.
Failure to Comply: If the claimant fails to meet these requirements, the court must dismiss the claim upon a motion by the real estate licensee.

(Actions Arising From Injuries Caused by Dogs)

31.360 Proof required for claim of economic damages in action arising from injury caused by dog

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

(Actions Based on Failure to Conduct Adequate Criminal Records Check)

31.370 Presumption of absence of negligence if defendant conducts criminal records check through Department of State Police

ORS 31.360 addresses the proof required for a claim of economic damages in an action arising from an injury caused by a dog in Oregon. It establishes specific conditions that must be met to recover such damages, aiming to ensure fair and consistent application of liability for dog-related injuries.

Key Points:

Applicability: Applicable to actions seeking economic damages (e.g., medical expenses, lost wages) for injuries caused by a dog.
Proof Requirements:
- The plaintiff (injured party) must prove:
  - The dog caused the injury.
  - The owner of the dog could have foreseen that the dog might cause the injury.
- The owner of the dog cannot assert as a defense that they could not have foreseen the dog would cause the injury.
Limitation on Damages:
- This statute does not apply to claims for noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering, emotional distress), which have a separate statutory cap of $500,000 in Oregon.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

ADVANCE PAYMENTS

31.550 “Advance payment” defined

ORS 31.550 defines "Advance Payment" in regards to ORS 12.155, ORS 31.550, and 31.565.

31.555 Effect of advance payment; payment as satisfaction of judgment

ORS 31.555 addresses the effect of advance payments on judgments in tort actions within Oregon. It outlines how such payments, made to an injured or claiming party before liability determination, are factored into final judgments or settlements.

Key Points

Offsetting Payments: Judgments for damages in tort actions are reduced by the amount of any advance payments previously made.
Scope of Reduction: The offset applies to both economic damages (e.g., medical expenses, lost wages) and noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering).
Documentation Requirements: The payer of the advance payment must provide evidence to the court or parties involved for proper calculation.
Coordination with Other Statutes: It interacts with statutes governing insurance coverage or liens on judgments.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.560 Advance payment for death or personal injury not admission of liability; when advance payment made

ORS 31.560 clarifies that advance payments made for damages arising from a person's death or injury do not automatically constitute an admission of liability by the payer in Oregon.

More Information:

Exception for Written Agreements: Parties involved can create a written agreement that designates the advance payment as an admission of liability, but this must be explicitly stated and agreed upon.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.565 Advance payment for property damage not admission of liability

ORS 31.565 clarifies that advance payments made for damages arising from property damage do not automatically constitute an admission of liability by the payer in Oregon.

More Information:

Interactions with other statutes may be relevant in conjunction with statutes governing insurance claims, property damage disputes, or settlement negotiations.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

COLLATERAL BENEFITS

31.580 Effect of collateral benefits

ORS 31.580 addresses the court's authority to deduct certain collateral benefits from damage awards in tort actions within Oregon. It aims to prevent double recovery for the same injury and ensure equitable compensation.

Key Points

Applicability: Applicable in civil actions for bodily injury or death where a party is awarded damages to be paid by another party.
Deduction of Collateral Benefits: The court may deduct from the damages awarded the amount of certain collateral benefits received by the injured or deceased person from sources other than the defendant.
Specific Exclusions: Benefits that cannot be deducted include:
- Benefits for which the injured or deceased person is obligated to repay.
- Life insurance or other death benefits.
- Insurance benefits for which the injured or deceased person paid premiums.
- Retirement, disability, or pension plan benefits, and Social Security benefits.
Evidence of Benefits: The party seeking the deduction must provide evidence of the collateral benefits received.
Timing of Deduction: The deduction is typically made before the entry of the judgment.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

31.600 Contributory negligence not bar to recovery; comparative negligence standard; third party complaints

ORS 31.600 establishes a comparative negligence standard in tort actions within Oregon. It allows for the apportionment of damages among multiple parties at fault, even when the claimant's own negligence contributed to their injury or loss.

Key Points

Contributory Negligence Not a Bar to Recovery: Under this statute, a claimant's own negligence, even if it exceeds that of other parties, does not automatically bar them from recovering damages.
Apportionment of Fault: The trier of fact (usually a jury) determines the percentage of fault attributable to each party involved in the incident.
Reduction of Damages: The claimant's damages are then reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.
Exceptions: Certain individuals or entities may be immune from liability under specific circumstances, even if partially at fault.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.605 Special questions to trier of fact; jury not to be informed of settlement

ORS 31.605 lays the groundwork for assigning precise fault percentages in personal injury or wrongful death cases involving multiple parties, ensuring damages are justly distributed based on each individual's degree of responsibility.

Key Points:

Special questions: Upon request, the trier of fact answers questions determining total damages and individual fault percentages.
Jury instructions: Juries receive specific instructions on the legal effects of their answers, but remain uninformed of claimant settlements to avoid bias.
Fault-based allocation: Fault percentages determined by the trier of fact form the basis for allocating damages proportionally.
Contributory negligence: Claimant's own negligence reduces their damages in proportion to their fault, but doesn't bar recovery.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.610 Liability of defendants several only; determination of defendants’ shares of monetary obligation; reallocation of uncollectible obligation; parties exempt from reallocation

ORS 31.610 governs liability in Oregon personal injury and death cases with multiple responsible parties. This covers situations where some damages may be uncollectible and the reallocation of these costs to the other defendants.

Key Points:

The "several liability" principle empowers plaintiffs to collect damages from any or all liable parties, even if those parties aren't jointly responsible for the full amount.
Fault percentages determined under ORS 31.605 play a crucial role in calculating each party's share of damages and reallocating uncollectible shares.
The statute balances flexibility for plaintiffs with measures to ensure equitable distribution of liability among those at fault.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.615 Setoff of damages not allowed

In personal injury or wrongful death cases in Oregon, ORS 31.615 prohibits the "setoff" of damages. This means that any monetary awards a defendant might be entitled to due to the injured party's actions cannot be directly deducted from the damages awarded to the plaintiff for their harm. This ensures that the plaintiff receives full compensation for their losses without having to navigate complex counterclaims.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.620 Doctrines of last clear chance and implied assumption of risk abolished

ORS 31.620 definitively extinguishes two outdated legal doctrines in Oregon personal injury cases: last clear chance and implied assumption of risk. This means that a plaintiff's own negligence or awareness of danger no longer automatically bars or reduces their recovery of damages.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

DAMAGES

(Economic and Noneconomic Damages)

ORS 31.700 simplifies how medical expenses incurred by injured children are handled within personal injury lawsuits. It allows parents or guardians, with the court's permission, to fold the child's medical expenses into the main lawsuit filed by the child's guardian ad litem. This avoids the need for parents to file a separate lawsuit just to recover those expenses.

Key Points:

Parents can choose to include medical expenses: When a child sues for damages through a guardian, parents can consent to add their medical expenses to the claim.
Combined lawsuit simplifies recovery: Including medical expenses saves time and resources by resolving them within the child's main lawsuit.
Court must approve inclusion: The court ensures the inclusion of medical expenses is appropriate and fair in each case.
Prevents duplicate claims: If parental consent is filed and approved, parents cannot pursue a separate lawsuit for the same medical expenses.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.705 Economic and noneconomic damages separately set forth in verdict; “economic damages” and “noneconomic damages” defined

ORS 31.705 dictates how juries in Oregon personal injury cases must categorize and award damages: It requires separate verdicts for economic damages (objectively verifiable monetary losses) and noneconomic damages (subjective, non-monetary losses). This ensures clear and transparent allocation of compensation for different types of harm.

Key Points:

Separate Awards: Verdicts must explicitly distinguish between economic damages (e.g., medical bills, lost wages) and noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering).
Economic Damages Defined: Defined as objectively verifiable monetary losses, including medical costs, lost income, property damage, etc.
Noneconomic Damages Defined: Defined as subjective, non-monetary losses, including pain, emotional distress, loss of companionship, etc.
Clearer Compensation: Separating awards clarifies how juries value different types of harm and ensures proportional compensation.

This statute promotes transparency and fairness in personal injury verdicts, providing a clearer picture of how juries assign value to different aspects of the harm suffered.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.710 Limitation on award for noneconomic damages in claim for wrongful death

ORS 31.710 places a cap of $500,000 on noneconomic damages awarded in wrongful death cases in Oregon. This restriction applies to subjective losses like pain and suffering, but not to objectively verifiable expenses like medical bills or lost income.

Key Points:

$500,000 Noneconomic Damages Cap: Applies to wrongful death lawsuits, excluding specific types of claims under other statutes.
Excludes Punitive Damages: Punitive awards remain unaffected by this cap.
Economic Damages Unaffected: Objectively verifiable expenses like medical bills are not subject to the cap.
Jury Unaware of Cap: Jurors deliberate damages without knowledge of the cap, ensuring impartial consideration of the harm suffered.

This statute sparks ongoing debate about balancing fair compensation for families with concerns about potentially excessive awards in wrongful death cases.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.715 Limitation on recovery of noneconomic damages arising out of operation of motor vehicle; uninsured plaintiff; plaintiff driving under influence of intoxicants

ORS 31.715 limits an injured driver's ability to recover non-economic damages (like pain and suffering) in car accident cases if they were driving uninsured or under the influence.

Key Points:

Non-economic damages barred for uninsured/drunk drivers: Generally, plaintiffs who violate driving laws cannot claim pain and suffering in civil claims.
Presumption of violation based on convictions: Conviction for DUI/driving uninsured automatically triggers the limitation.
Defendant can prove violation in other cases: If no conviction exists, the defendant must prove the plaintiff's violation by a preponderance of evidence.
Court may temporarily halt proceedings: If DUI charges are pending against the plaintiff, the court can temporarily halt the civil case.
Exceptions to the limitation: The limitation doesn't apply if the other driver also violated driving laws, committed an intentional tort, reckless driving, or a felony.
Limitation inapplicable for short lapses in insurance: If the plaintiff was insured recently and hasn't had uninsured driving violations for a year before the accident, the limitation doesn't apply.

This statute balances fair compensation for accident victims with concerns about drivers operating irresponsibly and without insurance.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

(Punitive Damages)

31.725 Pleading punitive damages; motion to amend pleading to assert claim for punitive damages; hearing

ORS 31.725 establishes a structured process for seeking punitive damages in Oregon civil lawsuits, aiming to prevent unfounded claims and protect defendants' rights.

Key Points:

Initial Pleadings Cannot Include Punitive Damages: Claims for punitive damages must be introduced through a separate motion to amend the initial pleading.
Motion to Amend Process:
- The party seeking punitive damages must file a motion with the court, supported by affidavits and documentation.
- Opposing parties can submit opposing evidence.
- The court holds a hearing within 30 days and decides within 10 days (or the motion is denied).
Grounds for Denial: The court may deny the motion if:
- The evidence doesn't meet the threshold for surviving a directed verdict on punitive damages.
- The timing of the motion prejudices the defendant's ability to defend against it.
Continuances Allowed: The court may grant continuances for necessary discovery related to the motion.
Discovery of Defendant's Finances Limited: Information about the defendant's ability to pay punitive damages is only discoverable if the motion to amend is granted.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.730 Standards for award of punitive damages; required review of award by court; additional reduction of award for remedial measures

ORS 31.730 establishes stringent guidelines for awarding punitive damages in Oregon civil cases, ensuring they are reserved for egregious conduct and subject to careful judicial oversight.

Key Points:

High Standard for Granting Punitive Damages:
- Requires "clear and convincing evidence" of either:
  - Malice on the defendant's part.
  - Reckless, outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm, coupled with conscious indifference to health, safety, and welfare.
Judicial Review of Jury Awards:
- Courts must review jury-awarded punitive damages to ensure they align with statutory and common-law factors applicable to the claim.
- Courts can reduce excessive awards.
Reduction for Remedial Measures:
- Courts can further reduce punitive damages if the defendant demonstrates reasonable efforts to prevent recurrence of the harmful conduct.
- Courts consider prior punitive damages awards against the same defendant for the same conduct.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.735 Distribution of punitive damages; notice to Department of Justice; order of application

ORS 31.735 dictates how punitive damages awarded in Oregon civil cases are distributed among the prevailing party, the government, and court facilities.

Key Points:

Allocation Breakdown:
- 30% to the prevailing party, with their attorney receiving up to 20% of that share.
- 60% to the Department of Justice for victims' compensation (except to public entities, who keep it).
- 10% to the State Court Facilities and Security Account.
Notice Required: The prevailing party must notify the Department of Justice about both the verdict and judgment awarding punitive damages.
Payment Order: Compensatory damages, costs, and court-awarded attorney fees are prioritized over punitive damages in payments from defendants.
Collaboration and Exceptions: All parties, including the Department of Justice, can agree to different distribution arrangements or modifications based on the specific judgment.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.740 When award of punitive damages against health practitioner prohibited

(Mitigation of Damages)

ORS 31.740 shields licensed healthcare professionals in Oregon from punitive damages in malpractice lawsuits, unless they meet specific exceptions.

Key Points:

Punitive Damages Barred for Most Licensed Healthcare Providers: Punitive awards are generally unavailable in lawsuits against licensed healthcare professionals practicing within their scope and without malice.
Protected Professionals List: Covers a wide range of professionals, including psychologists, nurses, dentists, physical therapists, pharmacists, etc.
Exceptions Exist: Punitive damages can still be awarded if the healthcare provider:
- Acted outside their licensed scope.
- Engaged in malicious conduct.
- Was unlicensed or unregistered.

This law works to encourage healthcare professionals to practice without fear of excessive punitive damages, while still allowing for accountability in exceptional cases.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.760 Evidence of nonuse of safety belt or harness to mitigate damages

ORS 31.760 limits how juries in Oregon car accident cases can consider a plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt:

Key Points:

Seatbelt non-use evidence for damage reduction only: Can't be used to deny liability, only reduce the amount of compensation awarded.
Reduction capped at 5%: Damages can't be lowered by more than 5% due to not wearing a seatbelt.
Exceptions: Seatbelt non-use evidence is irrelevant in:
- Product liability cases for defective seatbelts.
- Cases where not wearing a seatbelt significantly contributed to the accident itself.

Function:

Balances encouraging seatbelt use with fair compensation for accident victims, regardless of seatbelt use, except in specific situations.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

(Calculation of Future Earning Potential)

31.770 Inadmissibility of calculation of future earning potential based on race or ethnicity; jury instruction

ORS 31.770 safeguards against racial and ethnic bias in Oregon civil lawsuits.

Key Points:

Prohibits race-based calculations of future earnings: Evidence considering a plaintiff's race or ethnicity to estimate their future earning potential is inadmissible.
Jury instructions against bias: In cases involving claims for projected future earnings, the court must instruct the jury to disregard the plaintiff's race or ethnicity when deciding on damages.

Function:

Ensures fair calculation of future earnings damages in civil cases by eliminating racial and ethnic prejudice from the equation.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

CONTRIBUTION

31.800 Right of contribution among joint tortfeasors; limitations; subrogation of insurer; effect on indemnity right

ORS 31.800 establishes a legal framework for distributing responsibility and financial burdens among multiple parties liable for the same tort (civil wrong) in Oregon.

Key Points:

Right of Contribution: Jointly or severally liable tortfeasors (wrongdoers) can share costs proportionally, even if only one pays damages initially.
Exclusion from Contribution: No contribution right exists for parties not liable to the claimant.
Contribution Limits: Payment beyond a proportional share isn't obligated, and settlements exceeding reasonable amounts limit contribution rights.
Subrogation: Insurers paying full or partial liabilities gain the right to claim contribution in excess of the insured's proportional share.
Indemnity Prioritized: Existing indemnity rights (full responsibility for damages) supercede contribution claims.
Exclusion for Fiduciary Breaches: Contribution rules don't apply to breaches of trust or other fiduciary duties.

Function:

To ensure fair and proportionate financial responsibility among multiple parties responsible for the same civil wrong, while protecting parties with existing indemnity agreements and excluding certain fiduciary breaches.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.805 Basis for proportional shares of tortfeasors

ORS 31.805 determines how to apportion responsibility among multiple parties liable for a tort in Oregon, considering relative fault and specific scenarios.

Key Points:

Proportional Shares Based on Fault: Each tortfeasor's share of the total liability reflects their relative degree of fault or responsibility.
Contributory Negligence Cases: In cases subject to ORS 31.600 (no bar to recovery due to contributory negligence), negligence percentages determine each party's share.
Group Liability Possible: In some cases, equity may justify treating a group of tortfeasors as a single entity for liability purposes.
General Equity Principles Apply: Established principles of equity guide the overall process of assigning responsibility among multiple parties.

Function:

To achieve a fair and just distribution of liability among tortfeasors based on their individual and collective roles in causing harm, using both legal rules and equitable considerations.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.810 Enforcement of right of contribution; commencement of separate action; barring right of contribution; effect of satisfaction of judgment

ORS 31.810 outlines procedures and timeframes for enforcing contribution among multiple parties liable for the same injury or wrongful death in Oregon, ensuring fair reimbursement and preventing double recovery.

Key Points:

Contribution Enforcement: Can be pursued through separate action or within an existing lawsuit through a motion.
Time Limits: Contribution claims must be filed within two years after:
- Final judgment against the seeking party (for judgments).
- Payment of the common liability (for no judgment cases).
- Agreement to pay the common liability (pending lawsuits).
Statute of Limitations Exception: Claimants' right to recover from other liable parties isn't barred by the running of their initial statute of limitations.
Judgment Against One Doesn't Release Others: Unless satisfied, a judgment against one party doesn't automatically absolve others.
Court Judgment Binds Liable Parties: Regarding contribution rights, the court's determination on individual liabilities is binding among the responsible parties.

Function:

To facilitate prompt and efficient resolution of financial responsibility among multiple parties liable for the same harm, protecting both plaintiffs and defendants from unfairness or double recovery.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.815 Covenant not to sue; effect; notice

ORS 31.815 regulates the impact of settlements in Oregon tort cases with multiple potentially liable parties, ensuring fairness and clarity regarding remaining claims and contribution rights.

Key Points:

Settlement with One Tortfeasor: Doesn't automatically release others unless specified in the agreement.
Remaining Claims Reduced: The plaintiff's claims against remaining defendants are reduced by the settled proportion owed by the released party.
Settled Tortfeasor Released from Contribution: No longer obligated to contribute financially to any other party's liability.
Disclosure Requirement: The plaintiff must inform all other involved parties about the settlement terms.

Function:

To manage the interplay between settlements and ongoing claims in multi-party tort cases, preventing double recovery for plaintiffs and ensuring proportionate financial responsibility among contributing parties.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.820 Severability

ORS 31.820 ensures the remaining provisions of the Oregon contribution statute (ORS 31.800-31.820) remain enforceable if any part is challenged or deemed invalid.

Key Points:

Invalidation of One Part Doesn't Affect Others: If any provision within ORS 31.800-31.820 is found invalid, the rest of the statute stays in effect, as long as they can function independently.
Separability Principle: This law ensures the individual provisions of the statute are "severable" and can stand alone if other parts are challenged.
Continuity of Contribution Framework: This safeguard aims to preserve the overall framework for contribution among multiple liable parties in Oregon, even if specific aspects face legal objections.

Function:

To maintain the integrity and functionality of the contribution law by preventing a single point of invalidity from disrupting the entire system of shared responsibility among tortfeasors.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST INSURER

31.825 Assignment of cause of action against insurer

ORS 31.825 empowers defendants in Oregon tort cases who lose judgments to assign their bad faith claims against their insurance companies to the winning plaintiffs, granting them leverage to pursue compensation from both parties.

Key Points:

Defendant Can Assign Bad Faith Claims to Plaintiff: After a judgment loss, the defendant can transfer their lawsuit against their own insurance company for bad faith denial or inadequate defense to the victorious plaintiff.
Assignment Doesn't Automatically Extinguish Insurer Claim: Unless explicitly stated in the assignment agreement, the plaintiff gains the bad faith claim against the insurer while the original defendant's right to pursue it remains intact.
Increases Plaintiff's Leverage: This allows the plaintiff to potentially collect from both the defendant and the defendant's insurer, maximizing their potential recovery.

Function:

To offer greater protection and recovery options for plaintiffs in tort cases by enabling them to benefit from the defendant's potential claims against their insurance company for bad faith actions.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

ABOLISHED COMMON LAW ACTIONS

31.980 Action for alienation of affections abolished

ORS 31.980 abolishes lawsuits for "alienation of affections" in Oregon, meaning individuals cannot sue someone for causing the loss of love or affection from a spouse or partner.

Key Points:

No civil lawsuits allowed for alienation of affections.
Applies to loss of love or affection from spouses or partners.
Protects individuals from being sued for causing such loss.

This statute essentially eliminates a type of lawsuit based on emotional harm stemming from relationship issues.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

31.982 Action for criminal conversation abolished

ORS 31.982 prohibits lawsuits for "criminal conversation" in Oregon, preventing individuals from suing someone for adultery or sexual intercourse with their spouse or partner.

Key Points:

No civil lawsuits allowed for criminal conversation.
Applies to adultery or sexual intercourse with a spouse or partner.
Protects individuals from being sued for such acts.

This statute safeguards individuals from facing legal repercussions based solely on sexual activity within a relationship, regardless of its marital status.

Note: It's important to remember that this is a simplified explanation and doesn't capture the full nuances of the statute.

Repealed Statutes of ORS Chapter 31

The following are the portions of ORS Chaper 31 that have been repealed:

31.010 [Repealed by 1981 c.898 §53]

31.020 [Repealed by 1981 c.898 §53]

31.030 [Repealed by 1981 c.898 §53]

31.040 [Repealed by 1981 c.898 §53]

31.050 [Renumbered 652.500]

Free Consultations

We will review your case for free.

No Win, No Fee

Pay us nothing unless we get you a better settlement.

No Up-Front Fees

We work on contingency.

January 4, 2024

ORS Chapter 31 Explained