Horton v. Oregon Health & Science University, 373 P.3d 1158

An infant underwent liver surgery at OHSU that defendants negligently performed, severely damaging the child’s liver and creating an emergency need for a transplant.
Mother learned she was a tissue match and donated part of her liver to save the child; she then suffered surgical complications and alleged physical, economic, and emotional harms from the donation and its aftermath.
Plaintiffs sued: (1) on behalf of the child for injuries from the initial surgery; (2) mother’s personal claim for injuries from her transplant; (3) father’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim; and (4) economic damages related to child care.
Defendants moved to dismiss mother’s and father’s claims under ORCP 21 A(8), arguing lack of physician–patient relationship, lack of causation/foreseeability, and that mother’s voluntary donation broke causation.
Trial court dismissed mother’s and father’s claims as too attenuated; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the amended complaint adequately pleaded both causation and foreseeability and that mother was a foreseeable rescuer/donor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mother can state negligence claim though no physician–patient relationship	Mother: negligence principles apply; duty not limited to patient status	Defendants: malpractice requires a physician–patient duty; absence of that relationship defeats claim	Held: No special status required; negligence claim permitted (Tomlinson precedent)
Causation — was defendants’ negligence a cause in fact of mother’s injuries	Mother: but for defendants’ negligent surgery, child would not have needed transplant and she would not have donated	Defendants: mother’s voluntary decision intervened and broke causal chain	Held: Adequate pleading of but-for causation; mother’s choice was prompted by defendants’ negligence (Tomlinson, Gillilan)
Foreseeability — was mother a foreseeable plaintiff and her harms foreseeable	Mother: a parent who will donate to save an infant is a foreseeable rescuer/donor; emergency transplant was foreseeable from negligent liver damage	Defendants: donation was voluntary; harm was not a foreseeable consequence of surgery	Held: Mother falls within foreseeable class (rescuer/donor); transplant need and donor harm were foreseeable
Derivative consortium claim by father	Father: derivative of mother’s viable negligence claim	Defendants: father’s claim depends on mother’s claim surviving dismissal	Held: Father's loss-of-consortium claim reinstated because mother’s claim survives dismissal

Solberg v. Johnson, 306 Or. 484 (definition of negligence pleading elements)
Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or. 1 (foreseeability as limiting negligence liability)
Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC, 275 Or. App. 658 (medical-provider negligence actionable to non-patient parents; but-for causation by parental choice)
Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 357 Or. 74 (distinction between foreseeability and causation)
Joshi v. Providence Health System, 198 Or. App. 535 (cause in fact requires reasonable probability/but-for causation)
Gillilan v. Portland Cremation Ass’n, 120 Or. 286 (rescuer injuries can be caused by defendant’s negligence)
Stewart v. Jefferson Plywood Co., 255 Or. 603 (injuries to individuals responding to negligently caused hazards may be foreseeable)
Fuhrer v. Gearhart-By-The-Sea, 306 Or. 434 (failure to warn created foreseeable risk to a rescuer)
Chapman v. Mayfield, 358 Or. 196 (how to describe type of harm and class for foreseeability assessment)