Doe v. Lake Oswego School District
297 P.3d 1287
| Or. | 2013Background
- Seven adult plaintiffs, born 1957–1970, claim abuse by a Lake Oswego teacher in the 1968–1984 period; grooming rendered the harm non-obvious at the time.
- Plaintiffs sued the district under OTCA and Johnson for abuse; one plaintiff alleged district negligence for supervision.
- OTCA requires 270-day notice and a two-year suit period; discovery rule governs accrual when plaintiff discovers injury and tortious conduct.
- Trial court dismissed as time-barred, ruling accrual occurred at the time of touching (1984).
- Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding discovery occurred by 1984 for known touching and harm.
- Oregon Supreme Court reverses, holding discovery rule applies and material facts can show later accrual; remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual under OTCA discovery rule for minor abuse victims | Doe argues discovery of injury and tortious nature delayed accrual | Lake Oswego argues accrual by 1984 given touching occurred then | Discovery rule governs accrual; not necessarily 1984. |
| Whether plaintiffs reasonably discovered the tortious nature of conduct by 1984 | Plaintiffs allege they did not recognize offensiveness due to grooming | Defendant contends touching was offensive by 1984 per society norms | Issue for fact-finder; jury could find lack of notice in 1984. |
| Impact of ORS 12.117 on OTCA accrual for public actors | Argues statute supports later discovery window | Statute not applicable to public actors or OTCA discovery rule | Not controlling; OTCA discovery rule remains applicable. |
| Whether the claims for IIED and negligence were timely | Claims could be timely under discovery rule | OTCA limits bar time under 1984 accrual | Reversed; IIED and negligence claims timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Oregon State Police, 289 Or 233 (1980) (development of discovery rule for accrual under OTCA)
- Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247 (1994) (definition of 'injury' and discovery concepts)
- Johnson v. Mult. Co., Dept. Community Justice, 344 Or 111 (2008) (discovery and tortfeasor identity under discovery rule)
- Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 275 Or 245 (1976) (elements of battery; offensive vs harmful contact)
- T. R. v. Boy Scouts of America, 344 Or 282 (2008) (discovery standard applied to awareness of tortious conduct)
- Doe v. American Red Cross, 322 Or 502 (1996) (timing of discovery in negligence context)
- Kaseberg v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 351 Or 270 (2011) (objective discovery standard; minority status considerations)