Rosacker v. Multnomah County, No. A

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Writing for the CourtBefore SCHWAB; BUTTLER
Citation43 Or.App. 583,603 P.2d 1216
Docket NumberNo. A
Decision Date10 December 1979
PartiesDonald ROSACKER, Appellant, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent. 7701-00032; CA 12577.

Page 1216

603 P.2d 1216
43 Or.App. 583
Donald ROSACKER, Appellant,
v.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent.
No. A 7701-00032; CA 12577.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 21, 1979.
Decided Dec. 10, 1979.

[43 Or.App. 584]

Page 1217

Magar E. Magar, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

John D. Hoffman, Deputy County Counsel, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John B. Leahy, County Counsel, Portland.

Before SCHWAB, C. J., and BUTTLER and GILLETTE, JJ.

[43 Or.App. 585] BUTTLER, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered against him after the trial court sustained defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's second cause of action, 1 the only one involved in this appeal. In that cause of action, plaintiff alleged that on or about December 2, 1976, Sergeant Gatsky was employed by Multnomah County and was acting within the scope of his employment. He then alleged:

"On or about December 2, 1976, a hearing was held by Sergeant Gatsky at Rocky Butte Jail to determine whether or not plaintiff created a disturbance on November 29, 1977 (sic). At said hearing, defendant Gatsky, acting within the scope of his employment, wrongfully and unlawfully deprived plaintiff of the due process of the law * * * by not allowing plaintiff to call witnesses on his behalf * * *."

At trial, defendant county demurred on the ground that the second cause of action alleged a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 2 under which municipalities may not be [43 Or.App. 586] sued directly for the acts of their employees, relying on Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Defendant does not otherwise contend that it is immune under the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260-30.300) or that the complaint does not state a cause of action if the county may be sued.

Plaintiff contends that he may maintain this action under ORS 30.265, which provides:

"(1) Subject to the limitations of ORS 30.260 to 30.300, every public body is liable for its torts and those of its officers, employes and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function. As used in ORS 30.260 to 30.300, 'tort' includes any violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983."

He contends that by virtue of the last sentence of the subsection quoted above the legislature has provided that every public

Page 1218

body is liable for its torts, including the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, and that a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Mitchem v. Melton, No. 15136
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 12, 1981
    ...835 Page 898 (1980); Rzeznik v. Chief of Police of Southampton, 374 Mass. 475, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979); Ingram v. Moody, Ala., 382 So.2d 522 (1980); Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.3d 280, 159 Cal.Rptr.......
  • Marx v. Truck Renting and Leasing Ass'n Inc., No. 57130
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • September 30, 1987
    ...152, 156-57, 416 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (1979); Oklahoma: Powell v. Seay, 553 P.2d 161, 164 (Okla.1976); Oregon: Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 587, 603 P.2d 1216, 1218 (1979); Pennsylvania: Commonwealth ex rel. Saunders v. Page 1350 Creamer, 464 Pa. 2, 4 n. 3, 345 A.2d 702, 703 n......
  • Harrah v. Leverette, Nos. 14321
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 7, 1980
    ...399 N.E.2d 835 (1980); Rzeznik v. Chief of Police of Southampton, 374 Mass. 475, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979); Ingram v. Moody, Ala., 382 So.2d 522 (1980); Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.3d 280, 159 Cal.Rpt......
  • Rogers v. Saylor
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • February 5, 1988
    ...law and is subject, without qualification, to the damage limitations in the Oregon Tort Claims Act. See Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979), rev. den. 289 Or. 45 Plaintiff's claim against the five individual defendants, the only claim that is before us, is qui......
4 cases
  • Mitchem v. Melton, No. 15136
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 12, 1981
    ...835 Page 898 (1980); Rzeznik v. Chief of Police of Southampton, 374 Mass. 475, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979); Ingram v. Moody, Ala., 382 So.2d 522 (1980); Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.3d 280, 159 Cal.Rptr.......
  • Marx v. Truck Renting and Leasing Ass'n Inc., No. 57130
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • September 30, 1987
    ...152, 156-57, 416 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (1979); Oklahoma: Powell v. Seay, 553 P.2d 161, 164 (Okla.1976); Oregon: Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 587, 603 P.2d 1216, 1218 (1979); Pennsylvania: Commonwealth ex rel. Saunders v. Page 1350 Creamer, 464 Pa. 2, 4 n. 3, 345 A.2d 702, 703 n......
  • Harrah v. Leverette, Nos. 14321
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 7, 1980
    ...399 N.E.2d 835 (1980); Rzeznik v. Chief of Police of Southampton, 374 Mass. 475, 373 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979); Ingram v. Moody, Ala., 382 So.2d 522 (1980); Adler v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.3d 280, 159 Cal.Rpt......
  • Rogers v. Saylor
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • February 5, 1988
    ...law and is subject, without qualification, to the damage limitations in the Oregon Tort Claims Act. See Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979), rev. den. 289 Or. 45 Plaintiff's claim against the five individual defendants, the only claim that is before us, is qui......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT