Moody v. Lane County, Or.
Citation | 36 Or.App. 231,584 P.2d 335 |
Decision Date | 18 September 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 76-5246,76-5246 |
Parties | Colleen A. MOODY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jerry Lee Moody, Deceased, Appellant, v. LANE COUNTY, OREGON, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Respondent. ; CA 9059. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
John B. Arnold, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Arthur C. Johnson and Johnson, Harrang & Mercer, Eugene.
Randall Bryson, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Richard Bryson, Calkins & Calkins and Bryson & Bryson, Eugene.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and THORNTON, TANZER and BUTTLER, JJ.
This is an action for wrongful death against Lane County. The decedent was allegedly killed in a head-on automobile collision at an intersection which was designed and maintained by the County. Plaintiff alleges that, after the County identified a hazardous condition at the intersection and authorized minor changes in traffic control which would have alleviated that condition, it unreasonably delayed making those authorized changes. Plaintiff further alleges that the County's negligent delay was a proximate cause of decedent's death.
The County demurred to plaintiff's second amended complaint on the ground that the County's alleged failure to act was a discretionary function for which it was immune under the Tort Claims Act. ORS 30.265(3)(c). 1 The circuit court sustained the demurrer and, after plaintiff declined to plead further, judgment was entered for the County. This appeal followed.
The discretionary act exception to the general waiver of governmental immunity contained in the Tort Claims Act is intended to preclude judicial review of certain political decisions which are expressly committed to other branches of government. The exception protects governmental decisions which involve public policy considerations such as the availability of funds, public acceptance and order of priorities. Smith v. Cooper, 256 Or. 485, 506, 475 P.2d 78, 45 A.L.R.3d 857 (1970). In Comley v. State Bd. of Higher Ed., 35 Or.App. 465, 582 P.2d 443 (1978), we stated the underlying rationale of the discretionary act exception as follows 35 Or.App. at 475, 582 P.2d at 450.
Application of the discretionary act exception in a manner consistent with its underlying doctrine requires examination of the nature of the government action upon which plaintiff's claim is based. If adjudication of the claim necessarily involves judicial second-guessing of a public policy based decision made by another branch of government, then immunity attaches. Conversely, if the claim does not involve judicial review of such a governmental decision, then the discretionary act exception does not apply even though defendant's conduct may involve judgment of a non-governmental nature. Comley v. State Bd. of Higher Ed.
In this case, plaintiff's claim against the County, as set forth in her second amended complaint, is predicated upon the following conduct:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cranman v Maxwell
...New York, 116 Misc. 2d 217, 455 N.Y.S.2d 347 (Sup. Ct. 1982), order rev'd, 100 A.D.2d 478, 475 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1984); Moody v. Lane County, 36 Or. App. 231, 584 P.2d 335 (1978); City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995); Hudson v. Town of East Montpelier, 161 Vt. 168, 638 A.2d......
-
Donaca v. Curry County
...526 P.2d 1005 (1974); Hall v. State, 43 Or.App. 325, 602 P.2d 1104 (1979), aff'd 290 Or. 19, 619 P.2d 256 (1980); Moody v. Lane County, 36 Or.App. 231, 584 P.2d 335 (1978); Lanning v. State Hwy Comm., 15 Or.App. 310, 515 P.2d 1355 (1973); and Leonard v. Jackson, 6 Or.App. 613, 488 P.2d 838 ......
-
In re: Cranman v. Maxwell
...New York, 116 Misc. 2d 217, 455 N.Y.S.2d 347 (Sup. Ct. 1982), order rev'd, 100 A.D.2d 478, 475 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1984); Moody v. Lane County, 36 Or. App. 231, 584 P.2d 335 (1978); City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995); Hudson v. Town of East Montpelier, 161 Vt. 168, 638 A.2d......
-
Ex parte Cranman
...of New York, 116 Misc.2d 217, 455 N.Y.S.2d 347 (Sup.Ct.1982),order rev'd, 100 A.D.2d 478, 475 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1984); Moody v. Lane County, 36 Or.App. 231, 584 P.2d 335 (1978); City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex.1995); Hudson v. Town of East Montpelier, 161 Vt. 168, 638 A.2d 56......