Robinson v. Shipley, 80-1782-J-2
Decision Date | 18 November 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 80-1782-J-2,80-1782-J-2 |
Citation | 64 Or.App. 794,669 P.2d 1169 |
Parties | , 13 Ed. Law Rep. 1108 Connie Lynn ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Glen S. SHIPLEY, M.D., Respondent. ; CA A24706. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Larry J. Anderson, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Stanton F. Long, Deputy Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ.
Plaintiff brought this tort action against defendant, a physician at Southern Oregon State College Student Health Center, alleging negligent treatment. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the Oregon Tort Claims Act notice requirement, ORS 30.275(1), which at the relevant time provided:
We affirm.
The alleged negligent treatment occurred on or about September 27, 1978. On March 15, 1979, plaintiff's attorney sent the following letter to defendant:
Defendant subsequently made a copy of the letter available to an agent of the Attorney General's office within the 180-day period required by ORS 30.275(1). Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, claiming the March 15, 1979, letter actually received by the Attorney General substantially complies with the written notice requirements in ORS 30.275(1).
The purpose of notice to public bodies under the Oregon Tort Claims Act is to give timely notice of the tort and to allow its officers an opportunity to investigate the matter promptly. Urban Renewal Agency v. Lackey, 275 Or. 35, 549 P.2d 657 (1976). In addition, notice serves to provide the public body with a full opportunity to settle all meritorious claims without litigation. Leonard v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flug v. University of Oregon
...public body an opportunity to investigate a matter promptly and to settle all meritorious claims without litigation. Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or.App. 794, 797, 669 P.2d 1169, rev. den. 296 Or. 138, 674 P.2d 601 (1983). Where a communication relates to a variety of circumstances and events bu......
-
Or. State Univ. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
...giving rise to the claims. (Compare Dunn v. City of Milwaukie (2015) 270 Or.App. 478, 348 P.3d 301, 307 ; Robinson v. Shipley (1983) 64 Or.App. 794, 669 P.2d 1169, 1171 ; with Westcon Construction Corp. v. County of Sacramento (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 183, 200, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 ; Nelson v. S......
-
Margulies v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or.
...litigation." Flug v. Univ. of Or., 170 Or. App. 660, 671, 13 P.3d 544, 551 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) (citing Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or. App. 794, 797, 669 P.2d 1169,1171 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)); accord Urban Renewal Agency, 275 Or. at 41, 549 P.2d at 660. A plaintiff satisfies the OTCA's notice req......
-
Redding v. Lane Cmty. Coll.
...allows its officers a chance to investigate the claim and, if the claim is meritorious, settle it without litigation. Robinson v. Shipley, 64 Or. App. 794, 797 (1983). A plaintiff can satisfy the OTCA's notice requirements by: (1) formal notice; (2) actual notice; or (3) by bringing an acti......