Riddle v. Cain
Decision Date | 10 December 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 874-8,874-8 |
Parties | Robert G. RIDDLE, Appellant, v. Milo Ladean CAIN, Respondent. ; CA 17353. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Robert H. Grant, Medford, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Grant, Ferguson & Carter, Medford.
John W. Eads, Jr., Medford, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Frohnmayer, Deatherage, deSchweinitz & Eads, Medford.
Before RICHARDSON, P. J., and THORNTON and VAN HOOMISSEN, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment for defendant in this action arising out of a vehicle accident. Defendant was an employe of Lake County acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not comply with the Oregon Tort Claims Act notice requirement. ORS 30.275(1). We affirm.
The accident occurred in February, 1978. Plaintiff alleges that he delivered a notice in the form required by ORS 30.275(1) to an adjuster for the county's insurer and to the County Road Supervisor. Plaintiff does not contend that he presented a notice to the county clerk or that his notice was ever received by the county clerk.
At the relevant time, ORS 30.275(1) provided:
Under former ORS 15.080(3), a summons in an action against a county was required to be served on the county clerk.
Plaintiff argues that he substantially complied with ORS 30.275(1) by delivering his notice to the insurance company's adjuster, because all tort claims against the county were processed by the insurer and the county was precluded by the insurance policy from independently making payments or assuming obligations in connection with claims. Therefore, according to plaintiff, he presented the notice of his claim to the person who was in fact responsible for acting on it, so a notice to the county clerk was not required.
In Brown v. Portland School Dist. #1, 291 Or. 77, 628 P.2d 1183 (1981), the plaintiff contended that, although the statute requires that a notice of a claim be mailed by certified mail, his sending notices to the clerks of the defendant public bodies by regular mail, coupled with the clerks' actual receipt of the notices, constituted substantial compliance with ORS 30.275(1). A plurality of the Supreme Court agreed and stated:
(Emphasis added.) 291 Or. at 82-83, 628 P.2d 1183.
See also, Dowers Farms v. Lake County, 288 Or. 669, 684-86, 607 P.2d 1361 (1980).
The quoted language from Brown contradicts plaintiff's argument that he substantially complied with ORS 30.275(1). He did not present his notice to the correct official, and the notice was not actually received by that official. 1 Plaintiff is not assisted by his argument that the insurance adjuster rather than the county clerk and the insurance company rather than the county's governing body were effectively responsible for processing his claim. The county's authority to buy insurance and the insurer's role in settling claims have nothing to do with the notice requirement of the Tort Claims Act. Whatever the legislature's purpose was in designating the county clerk as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Albers v. Whitley, Civ. A. No. 81-517-PA.
...641 P.2d 1158, 1161 (1982) (equal protection and due process challenge to disparate notice requirements rejected); Riddle v. Cain, 54 Or.App. 474, 478-79, 635 P.2d 394, 396, pet. for review denied, 292 Or. 334, 644 P.2d 1127 (Or. 1981) (due process challenge to notice requirement rejected);......
-
Jack Doe 1 v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist.
...an equal protection and due [259 P.3d 36] process challenges to the OTCA notice requirement); [242 Or.App. 619] Riddle v. Cain, 54 Or.App. 474, 478–79, 635 P.2d 394, rev. den., 292 Or. 334, 644 P.2d 1127 (1981) (rejecting a due process challenge to the OTCA notice requirement); Brown v. Por......
-
Powell v. New Mexico State Highway and Transp. Dept.
...339, 344 (1976); Pausley v. Chaloner, 54 A.D.2d 131, 388 N.Y.S.2d 35, 37 (1976); Reirdon, 611 P.2d at 240; Riddle v. Cain, 54 Or.App. 474, 635 P.2d 394, 395-96 (Or.Ct.App.), review denied, 292 Or. 334, 644 P.2d 1127 (1981); Budahl, 287 N.W.2d at 492. See generally Daniel E. Feld, Annotation......
-
Gurley v. Memorial Hosp. of Guymon
...v. Vizenthal, 445 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla.App.1984); Burkett v. Calhoun County, 441 So.2d 1108, 1109 (Fla.App.1983); Riddle v. Cain, 54 Or.App. 474, 635 P.2d 394, 396 (1981) (Holding that a county's authority to buy insurance and notice provisions of a tort claims act have no connection.). Bu......