Jung Nyeo Lee v. State
415 P.3d 93
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- December 2012: Tour bus on icy I‑84 near Pendleton lost control, plunged down embankment; nine deaths and many injuries.
- ODOT responded, investigated at scene; district manager present and ODOT prepared an accident report.
- Plaintiffs (survivors, relatives, personal representatives) sued the bus operator in Washington soon after the crash and later requested DMV records referencing that litigation.
- Nearly two years after the crash plaintiffs filed suit against the State/ODOT for negligence and wrongful death but did not give formal ORS 30.275 notice within the statutory periods.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment for failure to comply with ORS 30.275 notice requirements; trial court granted; plaintiffs appealed asserting actual notice or substantial compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State had "actual notice" under ORS 30.275(6) | ODOT’s on‑scene investigation, accident report, and DMV request gave the State actual knowledge of time/place/circumstances and showed plaintiffs intended to sue the State | State knew incident details but lacked any communication indicating these plaintiffs intended to assert claims against the State | No actual notice — knowledge of the incident alone is insufficient; plaintiffs didn’t show intent to claim against the State |
| Whether plaintiffs "substantially complied" with ORS 30.275(6) | Even if formal actual notice absent, ODOT’s investigation satisfied the statute’s purpose (investigation/defense not prejudiced) | Statute serves multiple purposes (investigation and settlement); lack of communicated intent is not a mere technical defect and defeats substantial compliance | Substantial‑compliance doctrine does not cure absence of actual notice here; deficiency goes to the heart of actual notice |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Plaintiffs: disputed factual inferences could show actual notice or substantial compliance | Defendants: undisputed facts show no communication indicating plaintiffs intended to sue State; entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue that State lacked actual notice and plaintiffs failed to substantially comply |
| Whether an equal protection challenge to strict notice application is reviewable | Plaintiffs raised equal protection on appeal | Defendants: issue not preserved below; should not be considered | Court declined to address equal protection as not preserved for appeal (no plain‑error review) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp., 325 Or. 404, 939 P.2d 608 (summary judgment standard on review)
- Flug v. Univ. of Oregon, 335 Or. 540, 73 P.3d 917 (definition and elements of "actual notice" under ORS 30.275(6))
- Brown v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1, 291 Or. 77, 628 P.2d 1183 (substantial compliance doctrine for notice statutes)
- Heng‑Nguyen v. Tigard‑Tualatin Sch. Dist. 23J, 275 Or. App. 724, 365 P.3d 1173 (burden to show both incident knowledge and plaintiff’s intent to claim)
- State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347, 800 P.2d 259 (requirements for plain‑error review)