301 P.3d 901
Or.2013Background
- Plaintiff’s survival action against a public body must be brought within two years or three years of the injury under competing statutes (ORS 30.275(9) and ORS 30.075(1)).
- The core question is whether ORS 30.075(1) is a 'statute providing a limitation on the commencement of an action' triggering ORS 30.275(9)'s two-year rule.
- ORS 30.075(1) contains two parts: (i) it preserves a survival action upon the decedent’s death, and (ii) it sets a three-year limit for personal representatives to commence the action if not commenced before death; accrual is the trigger.
- ORS 30.275(9) provides a two-year limitation for OTCA claims against public bodies, with a broad 'notwithstanding' clause to override other limitations, subject to limited exceptions.
- The Court of Appeals held ORS 30.075(1) is an independent limitation on commencement and thus superseded by ORS 30.275(9); the majority agrees, adopting Baker’s framework.
- The dissent argues ORS 30.075(1) is a survival statute, not a stand-alone limitation, and should not be overridden by ORS 30.275(9).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ORS 30.075(1) a 'statute providing a limitation on the commencement of an action' under ORS 30.275(9)? | Plaintiff (Bell) argues ORS 30.075(1) tolls/extends an underlying limitation, not a stand-alone limitation. | Defendant contends ORS 30.075(1) creates a separate three-year limitation that is superseded by ORS 30.275(9). | Yes; ORS 30.075(1) is a limitation on commencement and is superseded. |
| If ORS 30.075(1) is a limitation, does ORS 30.275(9) apply to OTCA cases against public bodies? | OTLA argues 30.075(1) tolls underlying limitations and is not superseded. | The majority view aligns with Baker, treating 30.275(9) as overriding 30.075(1). | Yes; ORS 30.275(9) applies and the two-year limit governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Tri-Met, 247 Or App 666, 271 P3d 138 (2012) (survival vs. tolling distinction discussed; not controlling on the 30.275(9) interaction in this context)
- Baker v. City of Lakeside, 343 Or 70, 164 P3d 259 (2007) (notwithstanding clause applies to limitations; ORS 12.020(2) tolling not a 'statute providing a limitation' under 30.275(9))
- Mendez v. Walker, 272 Or 602, 538 P2d 939 (1975) (survival statute analogue; substitution timing treated as limitation; supports survival-rights analysis)
- Wiebe v. Seely, 215 Or 331, 335 P2d 379 (1959) (survival statute text; retroactivity context mentioned in dissent)
- Johnson v. Star Machinery Co., 270 Or 694, 530 P2d 53 (1974) (discussion of policy rationales for statutes of limitation (reliability, certainty))